Commentary

Angiosarcomas are uncommon, high-grade malignant tumors of endothelial cell origin that can arise via the lymphatics or vasculature. They typically occur spontaneously; however, there have been cases reported of benign vascular transformation. These tumors are more commonly found in elderly men on the head and neck in sun-damaged skin. Radiation-induced angiosarcoma occurs in an estimated 0.05%-0.3% of patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery and radiation therapy. This is a late complication, typically occurring about 5-10 years after radiation. Stewart-Treves syndrome, chronic lymphedema occurring after breast cancer treatment with axillary node dissection, increases the risk of angiosarcoma. As a vascular tumor, angiosarcoma spreads hematogenously and carries a poor prognosis if not caught early. Differential diagnoses include other vascular tumors such as retiform hemangioendothelioma. In this specific patient, the differential diagnosis includes Paget’s disease, chronic radiation skin changes, and eczema.

Histopathologically, angiosarcomas exhibit abnormal, pleomorphic, malignant endothelial cells. As the tumor progresses, the cell architecture becomes more distorted and cells form layers with papillary projections into the vascular lumen. Malignant cells may stain positive for CD31, CD34, the oncogene ERG and the proto-oncogene FLI-1. Histology in this patient revealed radiation changes in the dermis, as well as few vascular channels lined by large endothelial cells with marked nuclear atypia, in the form of large nucleoli and variably coarse chromatin. The cells were positive for MYC.

Treatment of angiosarcoma involves a multidisciplinary approach. Resection with wide margins is generally the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is relatively common, which may be a result of microsatellite deposits of the tumor. Perioperative radiation is recommended, and adjuvant chemotherapy often is recommended for metastatic disease. Specifically, paclitaxel has been found to promote survival in some cases of cutaneous angiosarcoma. Metastatic disease may be treated with cytotoxic drugs such as anthracyclines and taxanes. Additionally, targeted therapy including anti-VEGF drugs and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been tested.

The case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro of Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin. The column was edited by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cohen-Hallaleh RB et al. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2017 Aug 7:7:15.

Cozzi S et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2021 Sep 30;26(5):827-32.

Spiker AM, Mangla A, Ramsey ML. Angiosarcoma. [Updated 2023 Jul 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441983/

Angiosarcomas are uncommon, high-grade malignant tumors of endothelial cell origin that can arise via the lymphatics or vasculature. They typically occur spontaneously; however, there have been cases reported of benign vascular transformation. These tumors are more commonly found in elderly men on the head and neck in sun-damaged skin. Radiation-induced angiosarcoma occurs in an estimated 0.05%-0.3% of patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery and radiation therapy. This is a late complication, typically occurring about 5-10 years after radiation. Stewart-Treves syndrome, chronic lymphedema occurring after breast cancer treatment with axillary node dissection, increases the risk of angiosarcoma. As a vascular tumor, angiosarcoma spreads hematogenously and carries a poor prognosis if not caught early. Differential diagnoses include other vascular tumors such as retiform hemangioendothelioma. In this specific patient, the differential diagnosis includes Paget’s disease, chronic radiation skin changes, and eczema.

Histopathologically, angiosarcomas exhibit abnormal, pleomorphic, malignant endothelial cells. As the tumor progresses, the cell architecture becomes more distorted and cells form layers with papillary projections into the vascular lumen. Malignant cells may stain positive for CD31, CD34, the oncogene ERG and the proto-oncogene FLI-1. Histology in this patient revealed radiation changes in the dermis, as well as few vascular channels lined by large endothelial cells with marked nuclear atypia, in the form of large nucleoli and variably coarse chromatin. The cells were positive for MYC.

Treatment of angiosarcoma involves a multidisciplinary approach. Resection with wide margins is generally the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is relatively common, which may be a result of microsatellite deposits of the tumor. Perioperative radiation is recommended, and adjuvant chemotherapy often is recommended for metastatic disease. Specifically, paclitaxel has been found to promote survival in some cases of cutaneous angiosarcoma. Metastatic disease may be treated with cytotoxic drugs such as anthracyclines and taxanes. Additionally, targeted therapy including anti-VEGF drugs and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been tested.

The case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro of Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin. The column was edited by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cohen-Hallaleh RB et al. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2017 Aug 7:7:15.

Cozzi S et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2021 Sep 30;26(5):827-32.

Spiker AM, Mangla A, Ramsey ML. Angiosarcoma. [Updated 2023 Jul 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441983/

Angiosarcomas are uncommon, high-grade malignant tumors of endothelial cell origin that can arise via the lymphatics or vasculature. They typically occur spontaneously; however, there have been cases reported of benign vascular transformation. These tumors are more commonly found in elderly men on the head and neck in sun-damaged skin. Radiation-induced angiosarcoma occurs in an estimated 0.05%-0.3% of patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery and radiation therapy. This is a late complication, typically occurring about 5-10 years after radiation. Stewart-Treves syndrome, chronic lymphedema occurring after breast cancer treatment with axillary node dissection, increases the risk of angiosarcoma. As a vascular tumor, angiosarcoma spreads hematogenously and carries a poor prognosis if not caught early. Differential diagnoses include other vascular tumors such as retiform hemangioendothelioma. In this specific patient, the differential diagnosis includes Paget’s disease, chronic radiation skin changes, and eczema.

Histopathologically, angiosarcomas exhibit abnormal, pleomorphic, malignant endothelial cells. As the tumor progresses, the cell architecture becomes more distorted and cells form layers with papillary projections into the vascular lumen. Malignant cells may stain positive for CD31, CD34, the oncogene ERG and the proto-oncogene FLI-1. Histology in this patient revealed radiation changes in the dermis, as well as few vascular channels lined by large endothelial cells with marked nuclear atypia, in the form of large nucleoli and variably coarse chromatin. The cells were positive for MYC.

Treatment of angiosarcoma involves a multidisciplinary approach. Resection with wide margins is generally the treatment of choice. However, recurrence is relatively common, which may be a result of microsatellite deposits of the tumor. Perioperative radiation is recommended, and adjuvant chemotherapy often is recommended for metastatic disease. Specifically, paclitaxel has been found to promote survival in some cases of cutaneous angiosarcoma. Metastatic disease may be treated with cytotoxic drugs such as anthracyclines and taxanes. Additionally, targeted therapy including anti-VEGF drugs and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been tested.

The case and photo were submitted by Mr. Shapiro of Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Dr. Bilu Martin. The column was edited by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cohen-Hallaleh RB et al. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2017 Aug 7:7:15.

Cozzi S et al. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2021 Sep 30;26(5):827-32.

Spiker AM, Mangla A, Ramsey ML. Angiosarcoma. [Updated 2023 Jul 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441983/

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.

In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.

“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.

The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.

Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.

Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).

Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.

Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.

When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.

The goal of gender affirming hormone therapy and surgery isn’t to change chromosomal sex, but to alter one’s phenotypic sex so the physical body a patient sees, and others see, is reflective of how the patient feels. In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.

Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.

In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.

References

Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.

Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.

Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.

In a significant move that will fundamentally change the way clinicians bill for telemedicine services, the American Medical Association has unveiled 17 new Evaluation and Management (E/M) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes specifically for telemedicine visits scheduled for release in CPT 2025. The AMA says the new codes are designed to bring the coding system up to date with the changing landscape of health care and reflect the realities of modern medical practice.

The 17 new CPT codes will encompass a variety of telemedicine services. While the official language of the codes has not been released yet, codes for telemedicine visits using a real-time audio-visual platform could be organized similarly to existing office/outpatient E/M visits (99202-99205, 99212-99215). As part of these revisions, the current telephone E/M codes (99441-99443) will be deleted and replaced with new codes for audio-only E/M.

Implementation of so many codes will require health care providers and systems to adapt their documentation and coding practices. Typically, the exact language and code numbers for new and revised codes are not released to the public until fall of the preceding year, leaving only a few months for practices to educate their physicians and coding staff and prepare their internal systems for implementation starting Jan. 1, 2025. However, given the significant education and systems changes that will be necessary to prepare for so many new codes, we will advocate that the AMA release this information in early 2024.

Additionally, the reimbursement for telemedicine services may not ultimately be the same as for in-person E/M office visits. The AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC) provides recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for consideration in developing Relative Value Units (RVUs) for new procedures, including the telemedicine codes. The RUC’s recommendations for the telemedicine codes are not yet publicly available. However, it is important to note that regardless of the RUC recommendations, CMS makes all final decisions about Medicare payment. CMS could decide to set the payments for the telemedicine codes at parity with in-person office E/M visits or less than, more than, or some combination at the individual code level.

If payments for telemedicine visits are set at parity with or higher than office E/M visits, practices can focus primarily on physician and staff education and system implementation of the new codes. However, if telemedicine visit payments are less than in-person E/M office visits, it would have significant implications for practices, providers, and patients. Providers might be discouraged from offering virtual care, leading to a disparity in the availability of telehealth services, with patients in some areas or with certain conditions having limited access. Additionally, not all patients have access to a smartphone or stable internet. Research has shown increased use of audio-only visits among marginalized groups including African Americans, non-English speakers, older patients, those with public insurance as opposed to private insurance and patients living in rural communities and communities with low broadband access. For these patients, audio-only is a lifeline that allows them to access needed care.

Hughes HK, Hasselfeld BW, Greene JA. Health Care Access on the Line - Audio-Only Visits and Digitally Inclusive Care. N Engl J Med. 2022 Nov 17;387(20):1823-1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2118292. Epub 2022 Nov 12. PMID: 36373819.

Chen J, Li KY, Andino J, Hill CE, Ng S, Steppe E, Ellimoottil C. Predictors of Audio-Only Versus Video Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr;37(5):1138-1144. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07172-y. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34791589; PMCID: PMC8597874.

If payment for audio-only is significantly less than in-person office E/M payments, practices may not offer this option furthering health care inequities.

Beyond the extensive preparation needed and the financial implications, there could be impacts to coverage policies. Currently, telemedicine coverage is triggered by reporting the appropriate office E/M level visit with telemedicine modifier 95. If the new telemedicine codes are no longer tied to the in-person codes, laws requiring payers to provide coverage and parity may need to be adjusted accordingly or they could become less effective. If coverage parity is not maintained, that may lead to changes in practice that could also worsen access and health disparities. Some insurers have already started rolling back coverages. Recently, Aetna decided to stop covering telemedicine visits as of Dec. 1, 2023.

https://apps.availity.com/web/core/vault/vault/v1/files/336562/Kad1BQ9kR/c8ba0f72-6752-461d-a994-03ac8c047f3c?cacheBust=1696965544

Other insurers may follow suit.

As practices prepare for 2024, tracking insurance coverage policies for telemedicine, staying alert for information from the AMA about the new telemedicine CPT codes, and monitoring the proposed payments for telemedicine that CMS will release in late June to early July in the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule will be important. Participation in advocacy efforts will be critical once the full details are released by the AMA and CMS about the new telemedicine codes and their proposed values. The AGA is monitoring this issue and will continue to fight to reduce burden to physicians and practices, which includes fighting for payment parity with in-person office E/M visits and maintaining coverage benefits for patients.

The authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

In a significant move that will fundamentally change the way clinicians bill for telemedicine services, the American Medical Association has unveiled 17 new Evaluation and Management (E/M) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes specifically for telemedicine visits scheduled for release in CPT 2025. The AMA says the new codes are designed to bring the coding system up to date with the changing landscape of health care and reflect the realities of modern medical practice.

The 17 new CPT codes will encompass a variety of telemedicine services. While the official language of the codes has not been released yet, codes for telemedicine visits using a real-time audio-visual platform could be organized similarly to existing office/outpatient E/M visits (99202-99205, 99212-99215). As part of these revisions, the current telephone E/M codes (99441-99443) will be deleted and replaced with new codes for audio-only E/M.

Implementation of so many codes will require health care providers and systems to adapt their documentation and coding practices. Typically, the exact language and code numbers for new and revised codes are not released to the public until fall of the preceding year, leaving only a few months for practices to educate their physicians and coding staff and prepare their internal systems for implementation starting Jan. 1, 2025. However, given the significant education and systems changes that will be necessary to prepare for so many new codes, we will advocate that the AMA release this information in early 2024.

Additionally, the reimbursement for telemedicine services may not ultimately be the same as for in-person E/M office visits. The AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC) provides recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for consideration in developing Relative Value Units (RVUs) for new procedures, including the telemedicine codes. The RUC’s recommendations for the telemedicine codes are not yet publicly available. However, it is important to note that regardless of the RUC recommendations, CMS makes all final decisions about Medicare payment. CMS could decide to set the payments for the telemedicine codes at parity with in-person office E/M visits or less than, more than, or some combination at the individual code level.

If payments for telemedicine visits are set at parity with or higher than office E/M visits, practices can focus primarily on physician and staff education and system implementation of the new codes. However, if telemedicine visit payments are less than in-person E/M office visits, it would have significant implications for practices, providers, and patients. Providers might be discouraged from offering virtual care, leading to a disparity in the availability of telehealth services, with patients in some areas or with certain conditions having limited access. Additionally, not all patients have access to a smartphone or stable internet. Research has shown increased use of audio-only visits among marginalized groups including African Americans, non-English speakers, older patients, those with public insurance as opposed to private insurance and patients living in rural communities and communities with low broadband access. For these patients, audio-only is a lifeline that allows them to access needed care.

Hughes HK, Hasselfeld BW, Greene JA. Health Care Access on the Line - Audio-Only Visits and Digitally Inclusive Care. N Engl J Med. 2022 Nov 17;387(20):1823-1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2118292. Epub 2022 Nov 12. PMID: 36373819.

Chen J, Li KY, Andino J, Hill CE, Ng S, Steppe E, Ellimoottil C. Predictors of Audio-Only Versus Video Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr;37(5):1138-1144. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07172-y. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34791589; PMCID: PMC8597874.

If payment for audio-only is significantly less than in-person office E/M payments, practices may not offer this option furthering health care inequities.

Beyond the extensive preparation needed and the financial implications, there could be impacts to coverage policies. Currently, telemedicine coverage is triggered by reporting the appropriate office E/M level visit with telemedicine modifier 95. If the new telemedicine codes are no longer tied to the in-person codes, laws requiring payers to provide coverage and parity may need to be adjusted accordingly or they could become less effective. If coverage parity is not maintained, that may lead to changes in practice that could also worsen access and health disparities. Some insurers have already started rolling back coverages. Recently, Aetna decided to stop covering telemedicine visits as of Dec. 1, 2023.

https://apps.availity.com/web/core/vault/vault/v1/files/336562/Kad1BQ9kR/c8ba0f72-6752-461d-a994-03ac8c047f3c?cacheBust=1696965544

Other insurers may follow suit.

As practices prepare for 2024, tracking insurance coverage policies for telemedicine, staying alert for information from the AMA about the new telemedicine CPT codes, and monitoring the proposed payments for telemedicine that CMS will release in late June to early July in the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule will be important. Participation in advocacy efforts will be critical once the full details are released by the AMA and CMS about the new telemedicine codes and their proposed values. The AGA is monitoring this issue and will continue to fight to reduce burden to physicians and practices, which includes fighting for payment parity with in-person office E/M visits and maintaining coverage benefits for patients.

The authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

In a significant move that will fundamentally change the way clinicians bill for telemedicine services, the American Medical Association has unveiled 17 new Evaluation and Management (E/M) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes specifically for telemedicine visits scheduled for release in CPT 2025. The AMA says the new codes are designed to bring the coding system up to date with the changing landscape of health care and reflect the realities of modern medical practice.

The 17 new CPT codes will encompass a variety of telemedicine services. While the official language of the codes has not been released yet, codes for telemedicine visits using a real-time audio-visual platform could be organized similarly to existing office/outpatient E/M visits (99202-99205, 99212-99215). As part of these revisions, the current telephone E/M codes (99441-99443) will be deleted and replaced with new codes for audio-only E/M.

Implementation of so many codes will require health care providers and systems to adapt their documentation and coding practices. Typically, the exact language and code numbers for new and revised codes are not released to the public until fall of the preceding year, leaving only a few months for practices to educate their physicians and coding staff and prepare their internal systems for implementation starting Jan. 1, 2025. However, given the significant education and systems changes that will be necessary to prepare for so many new codes, we will advocate that the AMA release this information in early 2024.

Additionally, the reimbursement for telemedicine services may not ultimately be the same as for in-person E/M office visits. The AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC) provides recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for consideration in developing Relative Value Units (RVUs) for new procedures, including the telemedicine codes. The RUC’s recommendations for the telemedicine codes are not yet publicly available. However, it is important to note that regardless of the RUC recommendations, CMS makes all final decisions about Medicare payment. CMS could decide to set the payments for the telemedicine codes at parity with in-person office E/M visits or less than, more than, or some combination at the individual code level.

If payments for telemedicine visits are set at parity with or higher than office E/M visits, practices can focus primarily on physician and staff education and system implementation of the new codes. However, if telemedicine visit payments are less than in-person E/M office visits, it would have significant implications for practices, providers, and patients. Providers might be discouraged from offering virtual care, leading to a disparity in the availability of telehealth services, with patients in some areas or with certain conditions having limited access. Additionally, not all patients have access to a smartphone or stable internet. Research has shown increased use of audio-only visits among marginalized groups including African Americans, non-English speakers, older patients, those with public insurance as opposed to private insurance and patients living in rural communities and communities with low broadband access. For these patients, audio-only is a lifeline that allows them to access needed care.

Hughes HK, Hasselfeld BW, Greene JA. Health Care Access on the Line - Audio-Only Visits and Digitally Inclusive Care. N Engl J Med. 2022 Nov 17;387(20):1823-1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2118292. Epub 2022 Nov 12. PMID: 36373819.

Chen J, Li KY, Andino J, Hill CE, Ng S, Steppe E, Ellimoottil C. Predictors of Audio-Only Versus Video Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr;37(5):1138-1144. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07172-y. Epub 2021 Nov 17. PMID: 34791589; PMCID: PMC8597874.

If payment for audio-only is significantly less than in-person office E/M payments, practices may not offer this option furthering health care inequities.

Beyond the extensive preparation needed and the financial implications, there could be impacts to coverage policies. Currently, telemedicine coverage is triggered by reporting the appropriate office E/M level visit with telemedicine modifier 95. If the new telemedicine codes are no longer tied to the in-person codes, laws requiring payers to provide coverage and parity may need to be adjusted accordingly or they could become less effective. If coverage parity is not maintained, that may lead to changes in practice that could also worsen access and health disparities. Some insurers have already started rolling back coverages. Recently, Aetna decided to stop covering telemedicine visits as of Dec. 1, 2023.

https://apps.availity.com/web/core/vault/vault/v1/files/336562/Kad1BQ9kR/c8ba0f72-6752-461d-a994-03ac8c047f3c?cacheBust=1696965544

Other insurers may follow suit.

As practices prepare for 2024, tracking insurance coverage policies for telemedicine, staying alert for information from the AMA about the new telemedicine CPT codes, and monitoring the proposed payments for telemedicine that CMS will release in late June to early July in the 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule will be important. Participation in advocacy efforts will be critical once the full details are released by the AMA and CMS about the new telemedicine codes and their proposed values. The AGA is monitoring this issue and will continue to fight to reduce burden to physicians and practices, which includes fighting for payment parity with in-person office E/M visits and maintaining coverage benefits for patients.

The authors have reported no conflicts of interest.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As a consulting nephrologist, I go all over the hospital. Medicine floors, surgical floors, the ICU – I’ve even done consults in the operating room. And more and more, I do consults in the emergency department.

The reason I am doing more consults in the ED is not because the ED docs are getting gun shy with creatinine increases; it’s because patients are staying for extended periods in the ED despite being formally admitted to the hospital. It’s a phenomenon known as boarding, because there are simply not enough beds. You know the scene if you have ever been to a busy hospital: The ED is full to breaking, with patients on stretchers in hallways. It can often feel more like a warzone than a place for healing.

This is a huge problem.

The Joint Commission specifies that admitted patients should spend no more than 4 hours in the ED waiting for a bed in the hospital.

That is, based on what I’ve seen, hugely ambitious. But I should point out that I work in a hospital that runs near capacity all the time, and studies – from some of my Yale colleagues, actually – have shown that once hospital capacity exceeds 85%, boarding rates skyrocket.

I want to discuss some of the causes of extended boarding and some solutions. But before that, I should prove to you that this really matters, and for that we are going to dig in to a new study which suggests that ED boarding kills.

To put some hard numbers to the boarding problem, we turn to this paper out of France, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This is a unique study design. Basically, on a single day – Dec. 12, 2022 – researchers fanned out across France to 97 EDs and started counting patients. The study focused on those older than age 75 who were admitted to a hospital ward from the ED. The researchers then defined two groups: those who were sent up to the hospital floor before midnight, and those who spent at least from midnight until 8 AM in the ED (basically, people forced to sleep in the ED for a night). The middle-ground people who were sent up between midnight and 8 AM were excluded.

courtesy JAMA

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As a consulting nephrologist, I go all over the hospital. Medicine floors, surgical floors, the ICU – I’ve even done consults in the operating room. And more and more, I do consults in the emergency department.

The reason I am doing more consults in the ED is not because the ED docs are getting gun shy with creatinine increases; it’s because patients are staying for extended periods in the ED despite being formally admitted to the hospital. It’s a phenomenon known as boarding, because there are simply not enough beds. You know the scene if you have ever been to a busy hospital: The ED is full to breaking, with patients on stretchers in hallways. It can often feel more like a warzone than a place for healing.

This is a huge problem.

The Joint Commission specifies that admitted patients should spend no more than 4 hours in the ED waiting for a bed in the hospital.

That is, based on what I’ve seen, hugely ambitious. But I should point out that I work in a hospital that runs near capacity all the time, and studies – from some of my Yale colleagues, actually – have shown that once hospital capacity exceeds 85%, boarding rates skyrocket.

I want to discuss some of the causes of extended boarding and some solutions. But before that, I should prove to you that this really matters, and for that we are going to dig in to a new study which suggests that ED boarding kills.

To put some hard numbers to the boarding problem, we turn to this paper out of France, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This is a unique study design. Basically, on a single day – Dec. 12, 2022 – researchers fanned out across France to 97 EDs and started counting patients. The study focused on those older than age 75 who were admitted to a hospital ward from the ED. The researchers then defined two groups: those who were sent up to the hospital floor before midnight, and those who spent at least from midnight until 8 AM in the ED (basically, people forced to sleep in the ED for a night). The middle-ground people who were sent up between midnight and 8 AM were excluded.

courtesy JAMA

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As a consulting nephrologist, I go all over the hospital. Medicine floors, surgical floors, the ICU – I’ve even done consults in the operating room. And more and more, I do consults in the emergency department.

The reason I am doing more consults in the ED is not because the ED docs are getting gun shy with creatinine increases; it’s because patients are staying for extended periods in the ED despite being formally admitted to the hospital. It’s a phenomenon known as boarding, because there are simply not enough beds. You know the scene if you have ever been to a busy hospital: The ED is full to breaking, with patients on stretchers in hallways. It can often feel more like a warzone than a place for healing.

This is a huge problem.

The Joint Commission specifies that admitted patients should spend no more than 4 hours in the ED waiting for a bed in the hospital.

That is, based on what I’ve seen, hugely ambitious. But I should point out that I work in a hospital that runs near capacity all the time, and studies – from some of my Yale colleagues, actually – have shown that once hospital capacity exceeds 85%, boarding rates skyrocket.

I want to discuss some of the causes of extended boarding and some solutions. But before that, I should prove to you that this really matters, and for that we are going to dig in to a new study which suggests that ED boarding kills.

To put some hard numbers to the boarding problem, we turn to this paper out of France, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

This is a unique study design. Basically, on a single day – Dec. 12, 2022 – researchers fanned out across France to 97 EDs and started counting patients. The study focused on those older than age 75 who were admitted to a hospital ward from the ED. The researchers then defined two groups: those who were sent up to the hospital floor before midnight, and those who spent at least from midnight until 8 AM in the ED (basically, people forced to sleep in the ED for a night). The middle-ground people who were sent up between midnight and 8 AM were excluded.

courtesy JAMA

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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