From the AGA Journals

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) is a safe and effective technique for primary biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even among trainee advanced endoscopists, based on results of a randomized trial.

Across procedures conducted predominantly by trainees, safety outcomes were similar between NKF and standard cannulation, and all patients were successfully cannulated, suggesting this is a broadly accessible technique, reported lead author Aleksey Novikov, MD, of the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, and colleagues, reported.

Writing in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the investigators noted that standard cannulation fails in 5-20% of cases, which has led to development of various alternative techniques, including NKF. To perform the technique, the endoscopist makes a small incision in the intraduodenal biliary segment 3-6mm above the papillary orifice, with cephalad extension until bili-ary access is achieved.

To date, four prospective studies have evaluated NKF in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists. 

“These studies showed that NKF is a safe and useful technique that significantly reduces the risk of PEP in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists,” the investigators wrote. ‘The suggestion that NKF should be restricted to expert advanced endoscopists likely limits widespread use.”

To determine whether NKF is a suitable technique for less experienced endoscopists, the investigators conducted the present single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Adults undergoing ERCP for biliary indications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo primary cannulation via NKF or standard cannulation. Patients with prior sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, or unfavorable anatomy were excluded.

A total of 186 patients were randomized, with 137 ultimately included in the per-protocol analysis after exclusions for anatomic factors. Most procedures (72.3%) were performed by advanced endoscopy trainees under direct supervision, 26 procedures (19.0%) were performed by attending endoscopists without substantive prior NKF experience, and 12 (8.8%) by an attending endoscopist with NKF expertise.

“It is important to note that the majority of procedures performed in the context of this study were performed by an advanced endoscopy trainee with no NKF experience or an attending advanced endoscopist with minimal NKF experience,” the investigators wrote.

All patients received prophylactic rectal indomethacin, and cannulation attempts were capped at 20 minutes before crossover to another technique was permitted.

The primary endpoint was incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included successful biliary access, time to access, and rates of bleeding and perforation.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred at similar rate across groups: 6 cases (8.2%) in the standard cannulation arm and 5 cases (7.8%) in the NKF arm (P = .93). Rates of bleeding and perforation were also similar for both techniques.

Within the initial 20-minute window, biliary access rates were comparable between groups, at 75.3% and 82.2% for standard cannulation and NKF, respectively (P = .89). Allowing additional attempts or crossover, overall success rose to 100% in both arms.

Mean time to access was longer with NKF, averaging 380 seconds compared with 268 seconds for standard cannulation (P less than .05). 

“NKF was essentially equivalent to standard cannulation in many aspects,” the investigators wrote, calling the two techniques “complementary.”

They also suggested that the relative equivalence between techniques “carries more weight” after considering the low level of NKF experience among participating endoscopists.

“Overall, our data support teaching advanced endoscopy trainees NKF as a primary method of biliary access in patients with favorable anatomy,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Olympus.
 

Needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) is a safe and effective technique for primary biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even among trainee advanced endoscopists, based on results of a randomized trial.

Across procedures conducted predominantly by trainees, safety outcomes were similar between NKF and standard cannulation, and all patients were successfully cannulated, suggesting this is a broadly accessible technique, reported lead author Aleksey Novikov, MD, of the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, and colleagues, reported.

Writing in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the investigators noted that standard cannulation fails in 5-20% of cases, which has led to development of various alternative techniques, including NKF. To perform the technique, the endoscopist makes a small incision in the intraduodenal biliary segment 3-6mm above the papillary orifice, with cephalad extension until bili-ary access is achieved.

To date, four prospective studies have evaluated NKF in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists. 

“These studies showed that NKF is a safe and useful technique that significantly reduces the risk of PEP in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists,” the investigators wrote. ‘The suggestion that NKF should be restricted to expert advanced endoscopists likely limits widespread use.”

To determine whether NKF is a suitable technique for less experienced endoscopists, the investigators conducted the present single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Adults undergoing ERCP for biliary indications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo primary cannulation via NKF or standard cannulation. Patients with prior sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, or unfavorable anatomy were excluded.

A total of 186 patients were randomized, with 137 ultimately included in the per-protocol analysis after exclusions for anatomic factors. Most procedures (72.3%) were performed by advanced endoscopy trainees under direct supervision, 26 procedures (19.0%) were performed by attending endoscopists without substantive prior NKF experience, and 12 (8.8%) by an attending endoscopist with NKF expertise.

“It is important to note that the majority of procedures performed in the context of this study were performed by an advanced endoscopy trainee with no NKF experience or an attending advanced endoscopist with minimal NKF experience,” the investigators wrote.

All patients received prophylactic rectal indomethacin, and cannulation attempts were capped at 20 minutes before crossover to another technique was permitted.

The primary endpoint was incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included successful biliary access, time to access, and rates of bleeding and perforation.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred at similar rate across groups: 6 cases (8.2%) in the standard cannulation arm and 5 cases (7.8%) in the NKF arm (P = .93). Rates of bleeding and perforation were also similar for both techniques.

Within the initial 20-minute window, biliary access rates were comparable between groups, at 75.3% and 82.2% for standard cannulation and NKF, respectively (P = .89). Allowing additional attempts or crossover, overall success rose to 100% in both arms.

Mean time to access was longer with NKF, averaging 380 seconds compared with 268 seconds for standard cannulation (P less than .05). 

“NKF was essentially equivalent to standard cannulation in many aspects,” the investigators wrote, calling the two techniques “complementary.”

They also suggested that the relative equivalence between techniques “carries more weight” after considering the low level of NKF experience among participating endoscopists.

“Overall, our data support teaching advanced endoscopy trainees NKF as a primary method of biliary access in patients with favorable anatomy,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Olympus.
 

Needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) is a safe and effective technique for primary biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even among trainee advanced endoscopists, based on results of a randomized trial.

Across procedures conducted predominantly by trainees, safety outcomes were similar between NKF and standard cannulation, and all patients were successfully cannulated, suggesting this is a broadly accessible technique, reported lead author Aleksey Novikov, MD, of the University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, and colleagues, reported.

Writing in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the investigators noted that standard cannulation fails in 5-20% of cases, which has led to development of various alternative techniques, including NKF. To perform the technique, the endoscopist makes a small incision in the intraduodenal biliary segment 3-6mm above the papillary orifice, with cephalad extension until bili-ary access is achieved.

To date, four prospective studies have evaluated NKF in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists. 

“These studies showed that NKF is a safe and useful technique that significantly reduces the risk of PEP in the hands of expert advanced endoscopists,” the investigators wrote. ‘The suggestion that NKF should be restricted to expert advanced endoscopists likely limits widespread use.”

To determine whether NKF is a suitable technique for less experienced endoscopists, the investigators conducted the present single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Adults undergoing ERCP for biliary indications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo primary cannulation via NKF or standard cannulation. Patients with prior sphincterotomy, ampullectomy, or unfavorable anatomy were excluded.

A total of 186 patients were randomized, with 137 ultimately included in the per-protocol analysis after exclusions for anatomic factors. Most procedures (72.3%) were performed by advanced endoscopy trainees under direct supervision, 26 procedures (19.0%) were performed by attending endoscopists without substantive prior NKF experience, and 12 (8.8%) by an attending endoscopist with NKF expertise.

“It is important to note that the majority of procedures performed in the context of this study were performed by an advanced endoscopy trainee with no NKF experience or an attending advanced endoscopist with minimal NKF experience,” the investigators wrote.

All patients received prophylactic rectal indomethacin, and cannulation attempts were capped at 20 minutes before crossover to another technique was permitted.

The primary endpoint was incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included successful biliary access, time to access, and rates of bleeding and perforation.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred at similar rate across groups: 6 cases (8.2%) in the standard cannulation arm and 5 cases (7.8%) in the NKF arm (P = .93). Rates of bleeding and perforation were also similar for both techniques.

Within the initial 20-minute window, biliary access rates were comparable between groups, at 75.3% and 82.2% for standard cannulation and NKF, respectively (P = .89). Allowing additional attempts or crossover, overall success rose to 100% in both arms.

Mean time to access was longer with NKF, averaging 380 seconds compared with 268 seconds for standard cannulation (P less than .05). 

“NKF was essentially equivalent to standard cannulation in many aspects,” the investigators wrote, calling the two techniques “complementary.”

They also suggested that the relative equivalence between techniques “carries more weight” after considering the low level of NKF experience among participating endoscopists.

“Overall, our data support teaching advanced endoscopy trainees NKF as a primary method of biliary access in patients with favorable anatomy,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Olympus.
 

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.

 

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.

 

Prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists may weaken the benefit of some advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) while enhancing the efficacy of others, based on results of a large meta-analysis.

Patients previously treated with TNF antagonists were less likely to respond to lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors but more likely to achieve remission on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Han Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Treatment options for patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis have increased in the last decade with the availability of six different classes of medications,” investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2024 Dec. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.007). “There is wide interindividual variability in response to specific medications, and drivers of this heterogeneity are critical to understand to be able to choose the best therapy for each individual patient.”

To learn more about the impacts of anti-TNF exposure on subsequent advanced therapies, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2 and 3 trials. The dataset included 8,871 adults with moderate-severe UC. 

The primary outcome was induction of clinical remission at 6–14 weeks, most often defined as a Mayo Clinic score of 2 or lower with no subscore greater than 1. Endoscopic improvement, generally defined as a Mayo endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

Advanced therapies were grouped by mechanism of action, including lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and interleukin (IL)-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists. Odds ratios for treatment versus placebo were calculated separately for each subgroup, and a ratio of odds ratios was then used to assess whether prior TNF exposure modified drug effect. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis, restricted to approved dosing when multiple regimens were tested. 

Across five trials of lymphocyte trafficking inhibitors including 2,046 patients, efficacy was significantly greater in TNF-naïve patients compared with those who had prior TNF exposure. The odds of achieving clinical remission were nearly doubled in the TNF-naïve group (ratio of odds ratios [ROR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02–3.49).

In six trials of JAK inhibitors including 3,015 patients, remission rates were higher among TNF-exposed patients com-pared with TNF-naïve patients (ROR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22–1.01).

In six trials of IL-12/23 and IL-23 antagonists, including 3,810 patients, prior TNF exposure did not significantly modify treatment outcomes (ROR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64–1.80). Within individual trials, ustekinumab showed a trend toward great-er efficacy in TNF-exposed patients, whereas selective IL-23 antagonists performed similarly regardless of TNF exposure history.

Secondary analyses of endoscopic improvement yielded results consistent with the primary endpoint. Statistical heterogeneity across trials was minimal, and all included studies were rated at low risk of bias.

The investigators noted several limitations. For example, therapies were grouped broadly by mechanism of action, although specific biologic effects could potentially differ within groups. The analysis also could not account for patients who had failed two or more classes of advanced therapy, which may independently reduce the likelihood of response. 

Still, Lee and colleagues suggested that the findings deserve a closer look.

“[T]here is significant heterogeneity of treatment efficacy for induction of remission with different advanced therapies in patients with moderate-severe UC based on prior exposure to TNF antagonists,” they concluded. “Future studies on the mechanistic insight for these intriguing observations are warranted.”

The study was supported by the Leona and Harry B. Helmsley Trust, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Pfizer, and others.

 

Interpreting timed barium esophagram (TBE) results with a multimetric classification tree is more accurate for identifying disorders of achalasia than conventional interpretation, according to investigators.

The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”

TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.

To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.

Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.

Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.

The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.

Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.

The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.

“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”

 

Clinical Takeaways

Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.

“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”

Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.

“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”

Implementation, however, requires discipline.

“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”

Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.

“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Service.

The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Interpreting timed barium esophagram (TBE) results with a multimetric classification tree is more accurate for identifying disorders of achalasia than conventional interpretation, according to investigators.

The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”

TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.

To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.

Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.

Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.

The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.

Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.

The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.

“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”

 

Clinical Takeaways

Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.

“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”

Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.

“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”

Implementation, however, requires discipline.

“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”

Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.

“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Service.

The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Interpreting timed barium esophagram (TBE) results with a multimetric classification tree is more accurate for identifying disorders of achalasia than conventional interpretation, according to investigators.

The classification tree offers a practical alternative for evaluating esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow disorders when more advanced methods like high-resolution manometry (HRM) or functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) panometry are unavailable, lead author Ofer Z. Fass, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“[T]here are limited data on normative TBE values,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Furthermore, data supporting the accuracy of TBE as a screening test for esophageal motility disorders, as well as clinically relevant test thresholds, remains limited.”

TBE is conventionally interpreted using a handful of single measurements, most often the barium column height at 1, 2, or 5 minutes. Although these metrics are simple to obtain, variability in technique, cutoff values, and interpretation across centers limits reproducibility and weakens diagnostic accuracy, according to the investigators. The role of TBE has therefore been largely confined to adjudicating inconclusive manometry findings, but even in that setting, the absence of validated reference standards constrains its utility as a reliable screening tool.

To address this gap, Fass and colleagues conducted a prospective analysis of 290 patients who underwent TBE at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, with HRM and FLIP panometry, interpreted according to the Chicago Classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0), serving as the diagnostic reference standards.

Patients were included if they had both TBE and manometry performed within a short interval, ensuring that the two tests could be meaningfully compared. The study population represented a broad spectrum of esophageal motility presentations, allowing the model to be trained on clinically relevant variation.

Beyond column height, the investigators measured barium height at multiple timepoints, maximal esophageal body width, maximum EGJ diameter, and tablet passage. These variables were incorporated into a recursive partitioning algorithm to build a multimetric classification tree aimed at distinguishing EGJ outflow obstruction from other motility disorders.

The optimal tree incorporated three sequential decision levels. At the top was maximum esophageal body width, followed by EGJ diameter and barium height at the second level, and tablet passage at the third. This stepwise structure allowed the model to refine diagnoses by combining simple, reproducible TBE metrics that are already collected in routine practice.

Among the 290 patients, 121 (42%) had EGJ outflow disorders, 151 (52%) had no outflow disorder, and 18 (6%) had inconclusive manometry findings. Using conventional interpretation with column height and tablet passage, TBE demonstrated a sensitivity of 77.8%, a specificity of 86.0%, and an accuracy of 82.2%. The multimetric classification tree improved diagnostic performance across all parameters, with a sensitivity of 84.2%, a specificity of 92.1%, and an accuracy of 88.3%.

The advantages of multimetric interpretation were most notable in patients with borderline column heights, which single-metric approaches often misclassify, underscoring the value of integrating multiple measurements into a unified model.

“[T]his study demonstrated that TBE can accurately identify achalasia when analyzed using multiple metrics in a classification tree model,” Fass and colleagues wrote. “Future studies should explore the use of TBE metrics and models to identify more specific esophageal motor disorders (such as esophageal spasm and absent contractility), as well as validation in a larger, multicenter cohort.”

 

Clinical Takeaways

Rishi Naik, MD, of the Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, said the study represents a step forward in how clinicians can use a widely accessible esophageal imaging test.

“This study is important in that it has updated the way we use a very common, readily available imaging test and compared it to the current gold standard of HRM and FLIP,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This provides a practical, standardized framework for clinicians evaluating patients with suspected esophageal motility disorders.”

Naik noted that while HRM and FLIP provide highly detailed information, both carry drawbacks that limit their universal adoption.

“Practically, HRM is a transnasal test that can be cumbersome, and FLIP is performed during a sedated procedure,” he said. “From a comfort and cost perspective, the esophagram outcompetes. What the TBE lacked was adequate sensitivity and specificity when just looking at column height, which is how the authors overcame this by leveraging the comparisons using CCv4.0.”

Implementation, however, requires discipline.

“A timed barium esophagram is a protocol, not a single esophagram,” Naik said. “Without proper measurements, you can’t follow the decision tree.”

Still, he pointed to radiology’s increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) as a promising way forward.

“AI has already transformed radiological reads, and I’m optimistic it will eventually allow us to incorporate not only width, height, and tablet clearance but also 3D [three-dimensional] reconstructions of bolus retention and pressure to enhance predictive modeling,” Naik said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Service.

The investigators disclosed having relationships with Takeda, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and others. Naik is a consultant for Sanofi/Regeneron, Eli Lilly and Company, and Renexxion.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The need for gastroenterology (GI) services is on the rise in the US, with growing rates of colonoscopy, earlier-onset colon cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. This increase is taking place in the context of a changing regulatory landscape.

With expanded GI practice opportunities comes the need to raise awareness of medicolegal issues, and to that end, a recent educational practice management update was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology by Erin Smith Aebel, JD, a health law specialist with Trenam Law in Tampa, Florida. Aebel has been a speaker at several national GI conferences and has addressed GI trainees on these issues in medical schools.

“Healthcare regulation continues to evolve and it’s a complicated area,” Aebel told GI & Hepatology News. “Some physician investors in healthcare ventures see the potential profits but are not fully aware of how a physician’s license and livelihood could be affected by noncompliance.” 

Aebel has seen some medical business owners and institutions pushing physicians to their limits in order to maximize profits. “They’re failing to allow them the meaningful things that allow for a long-term productive and successful practice that provides great patient care,” she said. “A current issue I’m dealing with is employers’ taking away physicians’ administrative time and not respecting the work that is necessary for the physician to be efficient and provide great care,” she said. “If too many physicians get squeezed in this manner, they will eventually walk away from big employers to something they can better control.” 

Aebel noted that private-equity acquisitions of medical practices — a fast-growing US trend — are often targeted at quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care. “A question to be asked by physicians and patients is who is benefiting from this transaction?” she said. “Sometimes retired physicians can see a great benefit in private equity, but newer physicians can get tied up with a strong noncompete agreement. The best deals are ones that try to find wins for all involved, including patients.”

Many independent gastroenterologists focusing on the demands of daily practice are less aware than they should be of the legal and business administration sides. “I often get clients who come to me complaining about their contracts after they’ve signed them. I don’t have leverage to do as much for them,” she admitted.

From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control. These could relate to compensation and bonuses, as well as opportunities to invest in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).

Aebel’s overarching messages to gastroenterologists are as follows: “Be aware. Learn basic health law. Read your contracts before you sign them. And invest in good counsel before you sign agreements,” she said. “In addition, GI practitioners need to have a working knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal Stark Law and how they could be commonly applied in their practices.”

These are designed to protect government-funded patient care from monetary influence. The False Claims Act is another federal buttress against fraud and abuse, she said.

 

Update Details

Though not intended to be legal advice, Aebel’s update touches on several important medicolegal areas.

Stark Law on Self-Referrals

Gastroenterologists should be familiar with this federal law, a self-referral civil penalty statute regulating how physicians can pay themselves in practices that provide designated health services covered by federal healthcare programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.

For a Stark penalty to apply, there must be a physician referral to an entity (eg, lab, hospital, nutrition service, physiotherapy or radiotherapy center) in which the physician or a close family member has a financial interest.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Another common area vulnerable to federal fraud and abuse regulation is investment in ASCs. “Generally speaking, it is a felony to pay or be paid anything of value for Medicare or Medicaid business referrals,” Aebel wrote. This provision relates to the general restriction of the federal AKB statute.

A gastroenterologist referring Medicare patients to a center where that physician has an investment could technically violate this law because the physician will receive profit distributions from the referral. In addition to constituting a felony with potential jail time, violation of this statute is grounds for substantial civil monetary penalties and/or exclusion from the government coverage program.

Fortunately, Aebel noted, legal safe harbors cover many financial relationships, including investment in an ASC. The financial arrangement is protected from prosecution if it meets five safe harbor requirements, including nondiscriminatory treatment of government-insured patients and physician investment unrelated to a center’s volume or the value of referrals. If even one aspect is not met, that will automatically constitute a crime.

“However, the government will look at facts and circumstances to determine whether there was an intent to pay for a referral,” Aebel wrote.

The safe harbor designates requirements for four types of ASCs: surgeon-owned, single-specialty, multispecialty, and hospital/physician ASCs.

 

Private-Equity Investment

With mergers and acquisitions of US medical practices and networks by private-equity firms becoming more common, gastroenterologists need to be aware of the legal issues involved in such investment.

Most states abide by corporate practice of medicine doctrines, which prohibit unlicensed people from direct ownership in a medical practice. These doctrines vary by state, but their primary goal is to ensure that medical decisions are made solely based on patient care and not influenced by corporate interests. The aim is to shield the physician-patient relationship from commercial influence.

“Accordingly, this creates additional complicated structures necessary for private-equity investment in gastroenterology practices,” Aebel wrote. Usually, such investors will invest in a management services organization (MSO), which takes much of the practice’s value via management fees. Gastroenterologists may or may not have an opportunity to invest in the practice and the MSO in this scenario.

Under corporate practice of medicine doctrine, physicians must control the clinical aspects of patient care. Therefore, some states may have restrictions on private-equity companies’ control of the use of medical devices, pricing, medical protocols, or other issues of patient care.

“This needs to be considered when reviewing the investment documents and structural documents proposed by private equity companies,” the advisory stated. From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control over their clinical practice. “This could relate to their compensation, bonuses, and investment opportunities in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ASCs.”

Offering a gastroenterologist’s perspective on the paper, Camille Thélin, MD, MSc, an associate professor in the Division of Digestive Diseases and Health at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, who also practices privately, said, that “what Erin Aebel reminds us is that the business side of GI can be just as tricky as the clinical side. Ancillary services like capsule studies or office labs fall under strict Stark rules, ASC ownership has Anti-Kickback Law restrictions, and private-equity deals may affect both your paycheck and your autonomy.”

Thélin’s main takeaway advice is that business opportunities can be valuable but carry real legal risks if not structured correctly. “This isn’t just abstract compliance law — it’s about protecting one’s ability to practice medicine, earn fairly, and avoid devastating penalties,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “This article reinforces the need for proactive legal review and careful structuring of business arrangements so physicians can focus on patient care without stumbling into avoidable legal pitfalls. With the right legal structure, ancillaries, ASCs, and private equity can strengthen your GI practice without risking compliance.”

The bottom line, said Aebel, is that gastroenterologists already in private practice or considering entering one must navigate a complex landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements — particularly when providing ancillary services, investing in ASCs, or engaging with private equity.

Understanding the Stark law, the AKB statute, and the intricacies of private-equity investment is essential to mitigate risks and avoid severe penalties, the advisory stressed. By proactively seeking expert legal and business guidance, gastroenterologists can structure their financial and ownership arrangements in a compliant manner, safeguarding their practices while capitalizing on growth opportunities.

This paper listed no external funding. Neither Aebel nor Thélin had any relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The need for gastroenterology (GI) services is on the rise in the US, with growing rates of colonoscopy, earlier-onset colon cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. This increase is taking place in the context of a changing regulatory landscape.

With expanded GI practice opportunities comes the need to raise awareness of medicolegal issues, and to that end, a recent educational practice management update was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology by Erin Smith Aebel, JD, a health law specialist with Trenam Law in Tampa, Florida. Aebel has been a speaker at several national GI conferences and has addressed GI trainees on these issues in medical schools.

“Healthcare regulation continues to evolve and it’s a complicated area,” Aebel told GI & Hepatology News. “Some physician investors in healthcare ventures see the potential profits but are not fully aware of how a physician’s license and livelihood could be affected by noncompliance.” 

Aebel has seen some medical business owners and institutions pushing physicians to their limits in order to maximize profits. “They’re failing to allow them the meaningful things that allow for a long-term productive and successful practice that provides great patient care,” she said. “A current issue I’m dealing with is employers’ taking away physicians’ administrative time and not respecting the work that is necessary for the physician to be efficient and provide great care,” she said. “If too many physicians get squeezed in this manner, they will eventually walk away from big employers to something they can better control.” 

Aebel noted that private-equity acquisitions of medical practices — a fast-growing US trend — are often targeted at quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care. “A question to be asked by physicians and patients is who is benefiting from this transaction?” she said. “Sometimes retired physicians can see a great benefit in private equity, but newer physicians can get tied up with a strong noncompete agreement. The best deals are ones that try to find wins for all involved, including patients.”

Many independent gastroenterologists focusing on the demands of daily practice are less aware than they should be of the legal and business administration sides. “I often get clients who come to me complaining about their contracts after they’ve signed them. I don’t have leverage to do as much for them,” she admitted.

From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control. These could relate to compensation and bonuses, as well as opportunities to invest in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).

Aebel’s overarching messages to gastroenterologists are as follows: “Be aware. Learn basic health law. Read your contracts before you sign them. And invest in good counsel before you sign agreements,” she said. “In addition, GI practitioners need to have a working knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal Stark Law and how they could be commonly applied in their practices.”

These are designed to protect government-funded patient care from monetary influence. The False Claims Act is another federal buttress against fraud and abuse, she said.

 

Update Details

Though not intended to be legal advice, Aebel’s update touches on several important medicolegal areas.

Stark Law on Self-Referrals

Gastroenterologists should be familiar with this federal law, a self-referral civil penalty statute regulating how physicians can pay themselves in practices that provide designated health services covered by federal healthcare programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.

For a Stark penalty to apply, there must be a physician referral to an entity (eg, lab, hospital, nutrition service, physiotherapy or radiotherapy center) in which the physician or a close family member has a financial interest.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Another common area vulnerable to federal fraud and abuse regulation is investment in ASCs. “Generally speaking, it is a felony to pay or be paid anything of value for Medicare or Medicaid business referrals,” Aebel wrote. This provision relates to the general restriction of the federal AKB statute.

A gastroenterologist referring Medicare patients to a center where that physician has an investment could technically violate this law because the physician will receive profit distributions from the referral. In addition to constituting a felony with potential jail time, violation of this statute is grounds for substantial civil monetary penalties and/or exclusion from the government coverage program.

Fortunately, Aebel noted, legal safe harbors cover many financial relationships, including investment in an ASC. The financial arrangement is protected from prosecution if it meets five safe harbor requirements, including nondiscriminatory treatment of government-insured patients and physician investment unrelated to a center’s volume or the value of referrals. If even one aspect is not met, that will automatically constitute a crime.

“However, the government will look at facts and circumstances to determine whether there was an intent to pay for a referral,” Aebel wrote.

The safe harbor designates requirements for four types of ASCs: surgeon-owned, single-specialty, multispecialty, and hospital/physician ASCs.

 

Private-Equity Investment

With mergers and acquisitions of US medical practices and networks by private-equity firms becoming more common, gastroenterologists need to be aware of the legal issues involved in such investment.

Most states abide by corporate practice of medicine doctrines, which prohibit unlicensed people from direct ownership in a medical practice. These doctrines vary by state, but their primary goal is to ensure that medical decisions are made solely based on patient care and not influenced by corporate interests. The aim is to shield the physician-patient relationship from commercial influence.

“Accordingly, this creates additional complicated structures necessary for private-equity investment in gastroenterology practices,” Aebel wrote. Usually, such investors will invest in a management services organization (MSO), which takes much of the practice’s value via management fees. Gastroenterologists may or may not have an opportunity to invest in the practice and the MSO in this scenario.

Under corporate practice of medicine doctrine, physicians must control the clinical aspects of patient care. Therefore, some states may have restrictions on private-equity companies’ control of the use of medical devices, pricing, medical protocols, or other issues of patient care.

“This needs to be considered when reviewing the investment documents and structural documents proposed by private equity companies,” the advisory stated. From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control over their clinical practice. “This could relate to their compensation, bonuses, and investment opportunities in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ASCs.”

Offering a gastroenterologist’s perspective on the paper, Camille Thélin, MD, MSc, an associate professor in the Division of Digestive Diseases and Health at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, who also practices privately, said, that “what Erin Aebel reminds us is that the business side of GI can be just as tricky as the clinical side. Ancillary services like capsule studies or office labs fall under strict Stark rules, ASC ownership has Anti-Kickback Law restrictions, and private-equity deals may affect both your paycheck and your autonomy.”

Thélin’s main takeaway advice is that business opportunities can be valuable but carry real legal risks if not structured correctly. “This isn’t just abstract compliance law — it’s about protecting one’s ability to practice medicine, earn fairly, and avoid devastating penalties,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “This article reinforces the need for proactive legal review and careful structuring of business arrangements so physicians can focus on patient care without stumbling into avoidable legal pitfalls. With the right legal structure, ancillaries, ASCs, and private equity can strengthen your GI practice without risking compliance.”

The bottom line, said Aebel, is that gastroenterologists already in private practice or considering entering one must navigate a complex landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements — particularly when providing ancillary services, investing in ASCs, or engaging with private equity.

Understanding the Stark law, the AKB statute, and the intricacies of private-equity investment is essential to mitigate risks and avoid severe penalties, the advisory stressed. By proactively seeking expert legal and business guidance, gastroenterologists can structure their financial and ownership arrangements in a compliant manner, safeguarding their practices while capitalizing on growth opportunities.

This paper listed no external funding. Neither Aebel nor Thélin had any relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The need for gastroenterology (GI) services is on the rise in the US, with growing rates of colonoscopy, earlier-onset colon cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. This increase is taking place in the context of a changing regulatory landscape.

With expanded GI practice opportunities comes the need to raise awareness of medicolegal issues, and to that end, a recent educational practice management update was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology by Erin Smith Aebel, JD, a health law specialist with Trenam Law in Tampa, Florida. Aebel has been a speaker at several national GI conferences and has addressed GI trainees on these issues in medical schools.

“Healthcare regulation continues to evolve and it’s a complicated area,” Aebel told GI & Hepatology News. “Some physician investors in healthcare ventures see the potential profits but are not fully aware of how a physician’s license and livelihood could be affected by noncompliance.” 

Aebel has seen some medical business owners and institutions pushing physicians to their limits in order to maximize profits. “They’re failing to allow them the meaningful things that allow for a long-term productive and successful practice that provides great patient care,” she said. “A current issue I’m dealing with is employers’ taking away physicians’ administrative time and not respecting the work that is necessary for the physician to be efficient and provide great care,” she said. “If too many physicians get squeezed in this manner, they will eventually walk away from big employers to something they can better control.” 

Aebel noted that private-equity acquisitions of medical practices — a fast-growing US trend — are often targeted at quick profits and quick exits, which can be inconsistent with quality long-term patient care. “A question to be asked by physicians and patients is who is benefiting from this transaction?” she said. “Sometimes retired physicians can see a great benefit in private equity, but newer physicians can get tied up with a strong noncompete agreement. The best deals are ones that try to find wins for all involved, including patients.”

Many independent gastroenterologists focusing on the demands of daily practice are less aware than they should be of the legal and business administration sides. “I often get clients who come to me complaining about their contracts after they’ve signed them. I don’t have leverage to do as much for them,” she admitted.

From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control. These could relate to compensation and bonuses, as well as opportunities to invest in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).

Aebel’s overarching messages to gastroenterologists are as follows: “Be aware. Learn basic health law. Read your contracts before you sign them. And invest in good counsel before you sign agreements,” she said. “In addition, GI practitioners need to have a working knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal Stark Law and how they could be commonly applied in their practices.”

These are designed to protect government-funded patient care from monetary influence. The False Claims Act is another federal buttress against fraud and abuse, she said.

 

Update Details

Though not intended to be legal advice, Aebel’s update touches on several important medicolegal areas.

Stark Law on Self-Referrals

Gastroenterologists should be familiar with this federal law, a self-referral civil penalty statute regulating how physicians can pay themselves in practices that provide designated health services covered by federal healthcare programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.

For a Stark penalty to apply, there must be a physician referral to an entity (eg, lab, hospital, nutrition service, physiotherapy or radiotherapy center) in which the physician or a close family member has a financial interest.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Another common area vulnerable to federal fraud and abuse regulation is investment in ASCs. “Generally speaking, it is a felony to pay or be paid anything of value for Medicare or Medicaid business referrals,” Aebel wrote. This provision relates to the general restriction of the federal AKB statute.

A gastroenterologist referring Medicare patients to a center where that physician has an investment could technically violate this law because the physician will receive profit distributions from the referral. In addition to constituting a felony with potential jail time, violation of this statute is grounds for substantial civil monetary penalties and/or exclusion from the government coverage program.

Fortunately, Aebel noted, legal safe harbors cover many financial relationships, including investment in an ASC. The financial arrangement is protected from prosecution if it meets five safe harbor requirements, including nondiscriminatory treatment of government-insured patients and physician investment unrelated to a center’s volume or the value of referrals. If even one aspect is not met, that will automatically constitute a crime.

“However, the government will look at facts and circumstances to determine whether there was an intent to pay for a referral,” Aebel wrote.

The safe harbor designates requirements for four types of ASCs: surgeon-owned, single-specialty, multispecialty, and hospital/physician ASCs.

 

Private-Equity Investment

With mergers and acquisitions of US medical practices and networks by private-equity firms becoming more common, gastroenterologists need to be aware of the legal issues involved in such investment.

Most states abide by corporate practice of medicine doctrines, which prohibit unlicensed people from direct ownership in a medical practice. These doctrines vary by state, but their primary goal is to ensure that medical decisions are made solely based on patient care and not influenced by corporate interests. The aim is to shield the physician-patient relationship from commercial influence.

“Accordingly, this creates additional complicated structures necessary for private-equity investment in gastroenterology practices,” Aebel wrote. Usually, such investors will invest in a management services organization (MSO), which takes much of the practice’s value via management fees. Gastroenterologists may or may not have an opportunity to invest in the practice and the MSO in this scenario.

Under corporate practice of medicine doctrine, physicians must control the clinical aspects of patient care. Therefore, some states may have restrictions on private-equity companies’ control of the use of medical devices, pricing, medical protocols, or other issues of patient care.

“This needs to be considered when reviewing the investment documents and structural documents proposed by private equity companies,” the advisory stated. From a business standpoint, gastroenterologists need to understand where they can negotiate for financial gain and control over their clinical practice. “This could relate to their compensation, bonuses, and investment opportunities in the practice, the practice management company, and possibly real estate or ASCs.”

Offering a gastroenterologist’s perspective on the paper, Camille Thélin, MD, MSc, an associate professor in the Division of Digestive Diseases and Health at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, who also practices privately, said, that “what Erin Aebel reminds us is that the business side of GI can be just as tricky as the clinical side. Ancillary services like capsule studies or office labs fall under strict Stark rules, ASC ownership has Anti-Kickback Law restrictions, and private-equity deals may affect both your paycheck and your autonomy.”

Thélin’s main takeaway advice is that business opportunities can be valuable but carry real legal risks if not structured correctly. “This isn’t just abstract compliance law — it’s about protecting one’s ability to practice medicine, earn fairly, and avoid devastating penalties,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “This article reinforces the need for proactive legal review and careful structuring of business arrangements so physicians can focus on patient care without stumbling into avoidable legal pitfalls. With the right legal structure, ancillaries, ASCs, and private equity can strengthen your GI practice without risking compliance.”

The bottom line, said Aebel, is that gastroenterologists already in private practice or considering entering one must navigate a complex landscape of compliance and regulatory requirements — particularly when providing ancillary services, investing in ASCs, or engaging with private equity.

Understanding the Stark law, the AKB statute, and the intricacies of private-equity investment is essential to mitigate risks and avoid severe penalties, the advisory stressed. By proactively seeking expert legal and business guidance, gastroenterologists can structure their financial and ownership arrangements in a compliant manner, safeguarding their practices while capitalizing on growth opportunities.

This paper listed no external funding. Neither Aebel nor Thélin had any relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.