MDedge Surgery

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced the conclusion of a program that provided billions in early Medicare payments to those affected by the Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group cyberattack last winter. The Accelerated and Advance Payment program, which began in early March to assist hospitals and practices facing significant reimbursement delays, will stop accepting applications after July 12, 2024.

CMS reported that the program advanced more than $2.55 billion in Medicare payments to > 4200 Part A providers, including hospitals, and more than $717.18 million in payments to Part B suppliers such as physicians, nonphysician practitioners, and durable medical equipment suppliers.

According to CMS, the Medicare billing system is now functioning properly, and 96% of the early payments have been recovered. The advances were to represent ≤ 30 days of typical claims payments in a 3-month period of 2023, with full repayment expected within 90 days through “automatic recoupment from Medicare claims” — no extensions allowed.

The agency took a victory lap regarding its response. “In the face of one of the most widespread cyberattacks on the US health care industry, CMS promptly took action to get providers and suppliers access to the funds they needed to continue providing patients with vital care,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement. “Our efforts helped minimize the disruptive fallout from this incident, and we will remain vigilant to be ready to address future events.”

Ongoing Concerns from Health Care Organizations

Ben Teicher, an American Hospital Association spokesman, said that the organization hopes that CMS will be responsive if there’s more need for action after the advance payment program expires. The organization represents about 5000 hospitals, health care systems, and other providers.

“Our members report that the aftereffects of this event will likely be felt throughout the remainder of the year,” he said. According to Teicher, hospitals remain concerned about their ability to process claims and appeal denials, the safety of reconnecting to cyber services, and access to information needed to bill patients and reconcile payments.

In addition, hospitals are concerned about “financial support to mitigate the considerable costs incurred as a result of the cyberattack,” he said.

Charlene MacDonald, executive vice-president of public affairs at the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents more than 1000 for-profit hospitals, sent a statement to this news organization that said some providers “are still feeling the effects of care denials and delays caused by insurer inaction.

“We appreciate that the Administration acted within its authority to support providers during this unprecedented crisis and blunt these devastating impacts, especially because a vast majority of managed care companies failed to step up to the plate,” she said. “It is now time to shift our focus to holding plans accountable for using tactics to delay and deny needed patient care.”

Cyberattack Impact and Response

The ransom-based cyberattack against Change Healthcare/UnitedHealth Group targeted an electronic data interchange clearing house processing payer reimbursement systems, disrupting cash flows at hospitals and medical practices, and affecting patient access to prescriptions and life-saving therapy.

Change Healthcare — part of the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Optum — processes half of all medical claims, according to a Department of Justice lawsuit. The American Hospital Association described the cyberattack as “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind” in US history.

By late March, UnitedHealth Group said nearly all medical and pharmacy claims were processing properly, while a deputy secretary of the US Department of Health & Human Services told clinicians that officials were focusing on the last group of clinicians who were facing cash-flow problems.

Still, a senior advisor with CMS told providers at that time that “we have heard from so many providers over the last several weeks who are really struggling to make ends meet right now or who are worried that they will not be able to make payroll in the weeks to come.”

Randy Dotinga is a freelance health/medical reporter and board member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

In the wake of a debilitating cyberattack against one of the nation’s largest health care systems, Marvin Ruckle, a nurse at an Ascension hospital in Wichita, Kansas, said he had a frightening experience: He nearly gave a baby “the wrong dose of narcotic” because of confusing paperwork.

Ruckle, who has worked in the neonatal intensive care unit at Ascension Via Christi St. Joseph for two decades, said it was “hard to decipher which was the correct dose” on the medication record. He’d “never seen that happen,” he said, “when we were on the computer system” before the cyberattack.

A May 8 ransomware attack against Ascension, a Catholic health system with 140 hospitals in at least 10 states, locked providers out of systems that track and coordinate nearly every aspect of patient care. They include its systems for electronic health records, some phones, and ones “utilized to order certain tests, procedures and medications,” the company said in a May 9 statement.

More than a dozen doctors and nurses who work for the sprawling health system told Michigan Public and KFF Health News that patient care at its hospitals across the nation was compromised in the fallout of the cyberattack over the past several weeks. Clinicians working for hospitals in three states described harrowing lapses, including delayed or lost lab results, medication errors, and an absence of routine safety checks via technology to prevent potentially fatal mistakes.

Despite a precipitous rise in cyberattacks against the health sector in recent years, a weeks-long disruption of this magnitude is beyond what most health systems are prepared for, said John S. Clark, an associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Michigan health system.

“I don’t believe that anyone is fully prepared,” he said. Most emergency management plans “are designed around long-term downtimes that are into one, two, or three days.”

Ascension in a public statement May 9 said its care teams were “trained for these kinds of disruptions,” but did not respond to questions in early June about whether it had prepared for longer periods of downtime. Ascension said June 14 it had restored access to electronic health records across its network, but that patient “medical records and other information collected between May 8” and when the service was restored “may be temporarily inaccessible as we work to update the portal with information collected during the system downtime.”

Ruckle said he “had no training” for the cyberattack.
 

Back to Paper

Lisa Watson, an intensive care unit nurse at Ascension Via Christi St. Francis hospital in Wichita, described her own close call. She said she nearly administered the wrong medication to a critically ill patient because she couldn’t scan it as she normally would. “My patient probably would have passed away had I not caught it,” she said.

Watson is no stranger to using paper for patients’ medical charts, saying she did so “for probably half of my career,” before electronic health records became ubiquitous in hospitals. What happened after the cyberattack was “by no means the same.”

“When we paper-charted, we had systems in place to get those orders to other departments in a timely manner,” she said, “and those have all gone away.”

Melissa LaRue, an ICU nurse at Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, described a close call with “administering the wrong dosage” of a patient’s blood pressure medication. “Luckily,” she said, it was “triple-checked and remedied before that could happen. But I think the potential for harm is there when you have so much information and paperwork that you have to go through.”

Clinicians say their hospitals have relied on slapdash workarounds, using handwritten notes, faxes, sticky notes, and basic computer spreadsheets — many devised on the fly by doctors and nurses — to care for patients.

More than a dozen other nurses and doctors, some of them without union protections, at Ascension hospitals in Michigan recounted situations in which they say patient care was compromised. Those clinicians spoke on the condition that they not be named for fear of retaliation by their employer.

An Ascension hospital emergency room doctor in Detroit said a man on the city’s east side was given a dangerous narcotic intended for another patient because of a paperwork mix-up. As a result, the patient’s breathing slowed to the point that he had to be put on a ventilator. “We intubated him and we sent him to the ICU because he got the wrong medication.”

A nurse in a Michigan Ascension hospital ER said a woman with low blood sugar and “altered mental status” went into cardiac arrest and died after staff said they waited four hours for lab results they needed to determine how to treat her, but never received. “If I started having crushing chest pain in the middle of work and thought I was having a big one, I would grab someone to drive me down the street to another hospital,” the same ER nurse said.

Similar concerns reportedly led a travel nurse at an Ascension hospital in Indiana to quit. “I just want to warn those patients that are coming to any of the Ascension facilities that there will be delays in care. There is potential for error and for harm,” Justin Neisser told CBS4 in Indianapolis in May.

Several nurses and doctors at Ascension hospitals said they feared the errors they’ve witnessed since the cyberattack began could threaten their professional licenses. “This is how a RaDonda Vaught happens,” one nurse said, referring to the Tennessee nurse who was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in 2022 for a fatal drug error.

Reporters were not able to review records to verify clinicians’ claims because of privacy laws surrounding patients’ medical information that apply to health care professionals.

Ascension declined to answer questions about claims that care has been affected by the ransomware attack. “As we have made clear throughout this cyber attack which has impacted our system and our dedicated clinical providers, caring for our patients is our highest priority,” Sean Fitzpatrick, Ascension’s vice president of external communications, said via email on June 3. “We are confident that our care providers in our hospitals and facilities continue to provide quality medical care.”

The federal government requires hospitals to protect patients’ sensitive health data, according to cybersecurity experts. However, there are no federal requirements for hospitals to prevent or prepare for cyberattacks that could compromise their electronic systems.
 

Hospitals: ‘The No.1 Target of Ransomware’

“We’ve started to think about these as public health issues and disasters on the scale of earthquakes or hurricanes,” said Jeff Tully, a co-director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California-San Diego. “These types of cybersecurity incidents should be thought of as a matter of when, and not if.”

Josh Corman, a cybersecurity expert and advocate, said ransom crews regard hospitals as the perfect prey: “They have terrible security and they’ll pay. So almost immediately, hospitals went to the No. 1 target of ransomware.”

In 2023, the health sector experienced the largest share of ransomware attacks of 16 infrastructure sectors considered vital to national security or safety, according to an FBI report on internet crimes. In March, the federal Department of Health and Human Services said reported large breaches involving ransomware had jumped by 264% over the past five years.

A cyberattack this year on Change Healthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group’s Optum division that processes billions of health care transactions every year, crippled the business of providers, pharmacies, and hospitals.

In May, UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty told lawmakers the company paid a $22 million ransom as a result of the Change Healthcare attack — which occurred after hackers accessed a company portal that didn’t have multifactor authentication, a basic cybersecurity tool.

The Biden administration in recent months has pushed to bolster health care cybersecurity standards, but it’s not clear which new measures will be required.

In January, HHS nudged companies to improve email security, add multifactor authentication, and institute cybersecurity training and testing, among other voluntary measures. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is expected to release new requirements for hospitals, but the scope and timing are unclear. The same is true of an update HHS is expected to make to patient privacy regulations.

HHS said the voluntary measures “will inform the creation of new enforceable cybersecurity standards,” department spokesperson Jeff Nesbit said in a statement.

“The recent cyberattack at Ascension only underscores the need for everyone in the health care ecosystem to do their part to secure their systems and protect patients,” Nesbit said.

Meanwhile, lobbyists for the hospital industry contend cybersecurity mandates or penalties are misplaced and would curtail hospitals’ resources to fend off attacks.

“Hospitals and health systems are not the primary source of cyber risk exposure facing the health care sector,” the American Hospital Association, the largest lobbying group for U.S. hospitals, said in an April statement prepared for U.S. House lawmakers. Most large data breaches that hit hospitals in 2023 originated with third-party “business associates” or other health entities, including CMS itself, the AHA statement said.

Hospitals consolidating into large multistate health systems face increased risk of data breaches and ransomware attacks, according to one study. Ascension in 2022 was the third-largest hospital chain in the U.S. by number of beds, according to the most recent data from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

And while cybersecurity regulations can quickly become outdated, they can at least make it clear that if health systems fail to implement basic protections there “should be consequences for that,” Jim Bagian, a former director of the National Center for Patient Safety at the Veterans Health Administration, told Michigan Public’s Stateside.

Patients can pay the price when lapses occur. Those in hospital care face a greater likelihood of death during a cyberattack, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

Workers concerned about patient safety at Ascension hospitals in Michigan have called for the company to make changes.

“We implore Ascension to recognize the internal problems that continue to plague its hospitals, both publicly and transparently,” said Dina Carlisle, a nurse and the president of the OPEIU Local 40 union, which represents nurses at Ascension Providence Rochester. At least 125 staff members at that Ascension hospital have signed a petition asking administrators to temporarily reduce elective surgeries and nonemergency patient admissions, like under the protocols many hospitals adopted early in the covid-19 pandemic.

Watson, the Kansas ICU nurse, said in late May that nurses had urged management to bring in more nurses to help manage the workflow. “Everything that we say has fallen on deaf ears,” she said.

“It is very hard to be a nurse at Ascension right now,” Watson said in late May. “It is very hard to be a patient at Ascension right now.”

If you’re a patient or worker at an Ascension hospital and would like to tell KFF Health News about your experiences, click here to share your story with us.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

In the wake of a debilitating cyberattack against one of the nation’s largest health care systems, Marvin Ruckle, a nurse at an Ascension hospital in Wichita, Kansas, said he had a frightening experience: He nearly gave a baby “the wrong dose of narcotic” because of confusing paperwork.

Ruckle, who has worked in the neonatal intensive care unit at Ascension Via Christi St. Joseph for two decades, said it was “hard to decipher which was the correct dose” on the medication record. He’d “never seen that happen,” he said, “when we were on the computer system” before the cyberattack.

A May 8 ransomware attack against Ascension, a Catholic health system with 140 hospitals in at least 10 states, locked providers out of systems that track and coordinate nearly every aspect of patient care. They include its systems for electronic health records, some phones, and ones “utilized to order certain tests, procedures and medications,” the company said in a May 9 statement.

More than a dozen doctors and nurses who work for the sprawling health system told Michigan Public and KFF Health News that patient care at its hospitals across the nation was compromised in the fallout of the cyberattack over the past several weeks. Clinicians working for hospitals in three states described harrowing lapses, including delayed or lost lab results, medication errors, and an absence of routine safety checks via technology to prevent potentially fatal mistakes.

Despite a precipitous rise in cyberattacks against the health sector in recent years, a weeks-long disruption of this magnitude is beyond what most health systems are prepared for, said John S. Clark, an associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Michigan health system.

“I don’t believe that anyone is fully prepared,” he said. Most emergency management plans “are designed around long-term downtimes that are into one, two, or three days.”

Ascension in a public statement May 9 said its care teams were “trained for these kinds of disruptions,” but did not respond to questions in early June about whether it had prepared for longer periods of downtime. Ascension said June 14 it had restored access to electronic health records across its network, but that patient “medical records and other information collected between May 8” and when the service was restored “may be temporarily inaccessible as we work to update the portal with information collected during the system downtime.”

Ruckle said he “had no training” for the cyberattack.
 

Back to Paper

Lisa Watson, an intensive care unit nurse at Ascension Via Christi St. Francis hospital in Wichita, described her own close call. She said she nearly administered the wrong medication to a critically ill patient because she couldn’t scan it as she normally would. “My patient probably would have passed away had I not caught it,” she said.

Watson is no stranger to using paper for patients’ medical charts, saying she did so “for probably half of my career,” before electronic health records became ubiquitous in hospitals. What happened after the cyberattack was “by no means the same.”

“When we paper-charted, we had systems in place to get those orders to other departments in a timely manner,” she said, “and those have all gone away.”

Melissa LaRue, an ICU nurse at Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, described a close call with “administering the wrong dosage” of a patient’s blood pressure medication. “Luckily,” she said, it was “triple-checked and remedied before that could happen. But I think the potential for harm is there when you have so much information and paperwork that you have to go through.”

Clinicians say their hospitals have relied on slapdash workarounds, using handwritten notes, faxes, sticky notes, and basic computer spreadsheets — many devised on the fly by doctors and nurses — to care for patients.

More than a dozen other nurses and doctors, some of them without union protections, at Ascension hospitals in Michigan recounted situations in which they say patient care was compromised. Those clinicians spoke on the condition that they not be named for fear of retaliation by their employer.

An Ascension hospital emergency room doctor in Detroit said a man on the city’s east side was given a dangerous narcotic intended for another patient because of a paperwork mix-up. As a result, the patient’s breathing slowed to the point that he had to be put on a ventilator. “We intubated him and we sent him to the ICU because he got the wrong medication.”

A nurse in a Michigan Ascension hospital ER said a woman with low blood sugar and “altered mental status” went into cardiac arrest and died after staff said they waited four hours for lab results they needed to determine how to treat her, but never received. “If I started having crushing chest pain in the middle of work and thought I was having a big one, I would grab someone to drive me down the street to another hospital,” the same ER nurse said.

Similar concerns reportedly led a travel nurse at an Ascension hospital in Indiana to quit. “I just want to warn those patients that are coming to any of the Ascension facilities that there will be delays in care. There is potential for error and for harm,” Justin Neisser told CBS4 in Indianapolis in May.

Several nurses and doctors at Ascension hospitals said they feared the errors they’ve witnessed since the cyberattack began could threaten their professional licenses. “This is how a RaDonda Vaught happens,” one nurse said, referring to the Tennessee nurse who was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in 2022 for a fatal drug error.

Reporters were not able to review records to verify clinicians’ claims because of privacy laws surrounding patients’ medical information that apply to health care professionals.

Ascension declined to answer questions about claims that care has been affected by the ransomware attack. “As we have made clear throughout this cyber attack which has impacted our system and our dedicated clinical providers, caring for our patients is our highest priority,” Sean Fitzpatrick, Ascension’s vice president of external communications, said via email on June 3. “We are confident that our care providers in our hospitals and facilities continue to provide quality medical care.”

The federal government requires hospitals to protect patients’ sensitive health data, according to cybersecurity experts. However, there are no federal requirements for hospitals to prevent or prepare for cyberattacks that could compromise their electronic systems.
 

Hospitals: ‘The No.1 Target of Ransomware’

“We’ve started to think about these as public health issues and disasters on the scale of earthquakes or hurricanes,” said Jeff Tully, a co-director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California-San Diego. “These types of cybersecurity incidents should be thought of as a matter of when, and not if.”

Josh Corman, a cybersecurity expert and advocate, said ransom crews regard hospitals as the perfect prey: “They have terrible security and they’ll pay. So almost immediately, hospitals went to the No. 1 target of ransomware.”

In 2023, the health sector experienced the largest share of ransomware attacks of 16 infrastructure sectors considered vital to national security or safety, according to an FBI report on internet crimes. In March, the federal Department of Health and Human Services said reported large breaches involving ransomware had jumped by 264% over the past five years.

A cyberattack this year on Change Healthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group’s Optum division that processes billions of health care transactions every year, crippled the business of providers, pharmacies, and hospitals.

In May, UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty told lawmakers the company paid a $22 million ransom as a result of the Change Healthcare attack — which occurred after hackers accessed a company portal that didn’t have multifactor authentication, a basic cybersecurity tool.

The Biden administration in recent months has pushed to bolster health care cybersecurity standards, but it’s not clear which new measures will be required.

In January, HHS nudged companies to improve email security, add multifactor authentication, and institute cybersecurity training and testing, among other voluntary measures. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is expected to release new requirements for hospitals, but the scope and timing are unclear. The same is true of an update HHS is expected to make to patient privacy regulations.

HHS said the voluntary measures “will inform the creation of new enforceable cybersecurity standards,” department spokesperson Jeff Nesbit said in a statement.

“The recent cyberattack at Ascension only underscores the need for everyone in the health care ecosystem to do their part to secure their systems and protect patients,” Nesbit said.

Meanwhile, lobbyists for the hospital industry contend cybersecurity mandates or penalties are misplaced and would curtail hospitals’ resources to fend off attacks.

“Hospitals and health systems are not the primary source of cyber risk exposure facing the health care sector,” the American Hospital Association, the largest lobbying group for U.S. hospitals, said in an April statement prepared for U.S. House lawmakers. Most large data breaches that hit hospitals in 2023 originated with third-party “business associates” or other health entities, including CMS itself, the AHA statement said.

Hospitals consolidating into large multistate health systems face increased risk of data breaches and ransomware attacks, according to one study. Ascension in 2022 was the third-largest hospital chain in the U.S. by number of beds, according to the most recent data from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

And while cybersecurity regulations can quickly become outdated, they can at least make it clear that if health systems fail to implement basic protections there “should be consequences for that,” Jim Bagian, a former director of the National Center for Patient Safety at the Veterans Health Administration, told Michigan Public’s Stateside.

Patients can pay the price when lapses occur. Those in hospital care face a greater likelihood of death during a cyberattack, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

Workers concerned about patient safety at Ascension hospitals in Michigan have called for the company to make changes.

“We implore Ascension to recognize the internal problems that continue to plague its hospitals, both publicly and transparently,” said Dina Carlisle, a nurse and the president of the OPEIU Local 40 union, which represents nurses at Ascension Providence Rochester. At least 125 staff members at that Ascension hospital have signed a petition asking administrators to temporarily reduce elective surgeries and nonemergency patient admissions, like under the protocols many hospitals adopted early in the covid-19 pandemic.

Watson, the Kansas ICU nurse, said in late May that nurses had urged management to bring in more nurses to help manage the workflow. “Everything that we say has fallen on deaf ears,” she said.

“It is very hard to be a nurse at Ascension right now,” Watson said in late May. “It is very hard to be a patient at Ascension right now.”

If you’re a patient or worker at an Ascension hospital and would like to tell KFF Health News about your experiences, click here to share your story with us.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

In the wake of a debilitating cyberattack against one of the nation’s largest health care systems, Marvin Ruckle, a nurse at an Ascension hospital in Wichita, Kansas, said he had a frightening experience: He nearly gave a baby “the wrong dose of narcotic” because of confusing paperwork.

Ruckle, who has worked in the neonatal intensive care unit at Ascension Via Christi St. Joseph for two decades, said it was “hard to decipher which was the correct dose” on the medication record. He’d “never seen that happen,” he said, “when we were on the computer system” before the cyberattack.

A May 8 ransomware attack against Ascension, a Catholic health system with 140 hospitals in at least 10 states, locked providers out of systems that track and coordinate nearly every aspect of patient care. They include its systems for electronic health records, some phones, and ones “utilized to order certain tests, procedures and medications,” the company said in a May 9 statement.

More than a dozen doctors and nurses who work for the sprawling health system told Michigan Public and KFF Health News that patient care at its hospitals across the nation was compromised in the fallout of the cyberattack over the past several weeks. Clinicians working for hospitals in three states described harrowing lapses, including delayed or lost lab results, medication errors, and an absence of routine safety checks via technology to prevent potentially fatal mistakes.

Despite a precipitous rise in cyberattacks against the health sector in recent years, a weeks-long disruption of this magnitude is beyond what most health systems are prepared for, said John S. Clark, an associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Michigan health system.

“I don’t believe that anyone is fully prepared,” he said. Most emergency management plans “are designed around long-term downtimes that are into one, two, or three days.”

Ascension in a public statement May 9 said its care teams were “trained for these kinds of disruptions,” but did not respond to questions in early June about whether it had prepared for longer periods of downtime. Ascension said June 14 it had restored access to electronic health records across its network, but that patient “medical records and other information collected between May 8” and when the service was restored “may be temporarily inaccessible as we work to update the portal with information collected during the system downtime.”

Ruckle said he “had no training” for the cyberattack.
 

Back to Paper

Lisa Watson, an intensive care unit nurse at Ascension Via Christi St. Francis hospital in Wichita, described her own close call. She said she nearly administered the wrong medication to a critically ill patient because she couldn’t scan it as she normally would. “My patient probably would have passed away had I not caught it,” she said.

Watson is no stranger to using paper for patients’ medical charts, saying she did so “for probably half of my career,” before electronic health records became ubiquitous in hospitals. What happened after the cyberattack was “by no means the same.”

“When we paper-charted, we had systems in place to get those orders to other departments in a timely manner,” she said, “and those have all gone away.”

Melissa LaRue, an ICU nurse at Ascension Saint Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, described a close call with “administering the wrong dosage” of a patient’s blood pressure medication. “Luckily,” she said, it was “triple-checked and remedied before that could happen. But I think the potential for harm is there when you have so much information and paperwork that you have to go through.”

Clinicians say their hospitals have relied on slapdash workarounds, using handwritten notes, faxes, sticky notes, and basic computer spreadsheets — many devised on the fly by doctors and nurses — to care for patients.

More than a dozen other nurses and doctors, some of them without union protections, at Ascension hospitals in Michigan recounted situations in which they say patient care was compromised. Those clinicians spoke on the condition that they not be named for fear of retaliation by their employer.

An Ascension hospital emergency room doctor in Detroit said a man on the city’s east side was given a dangerous narcotic intended for another patient because of a paperwork mix-up. As a result, the patient’s breathing slowed to the point that he had to be put on a ventilator. “We intubated him and we sent him to the ICU because he got the wrong medication.”

A nurse in a Michigan Ascension hospital ER said a woman with low blood sugar and “altered mental status” went into cardiac arrest and died after staff said they waited four hours for lab results they needed to determine how to treat her, but never received. “If I started having crushing chest pain in the middle of work and thought I was having a big one, I would grab someone to drive me down the street to another hospital,” the same ER nurse said.

Similar concerns reportedly led a travel nurse at an Ascension hospital in Indiana to quit. “I just want to warn those patients that are coming to any of the Ascension facilities that there will be delays in care. There is potential for error and for harm,” Justin Neisser told CBS4 in Indianapolis in May.

Several nurses and doctors at Ascension hospitals said they feared the errors they’ve witnessed since the cyberattack began could threaten their professional licenses. “This is how a RaDonda Vaught happens,” one nurse said, referring to the Tennessee nurse who was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in 2022 for a fatal drug error.

Reporters were not able to review records to verify clinicians’ claims because of privacy laws surrounding patients’ medical information that apply to health care professionals.

Ascension declined to answer questions about claims that care has been affected by the ransomware attack. “As we have made clear throughout this cyber attack which has impacted our system and our dedicated clinical providers, caring for our patients is our highest priority,” Sean Fitzpatrick, Ascension’s vice president of external communications, said via email on June 3. “We are confident that our care providers in our hospitals and facilities continue to provide quality medical care.”

The federal government requires hospitals to protect patients’ sensitive health data, according to cybersecurity experts. However, there are no federal requirements for hospitals to prevent or prepare for cyberattacks that could compromise their electronic systems.
 

Hospitals: ‘The No.1 Target of Ransomware’

“We’ve started to think about these as public health issues and disasters on the scale of earthquakes or hurricanes,” said Jeff Tully, a co-director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California-San Diego. “These types of cybersecurity incidents should be thought of as a matter of when, and not if.”

Josh Corman, a cybersecurity expert and advocate, said ransom crews regard hospitals as the perfect prey: “They have terrible security and they’ll pay. So almost immediately, hospitals went to the No. 1 target of ransomware.”

In 2023, the health sector experienced the largest share of ransomware attacks of 16 infrastructure sectors considered vital to national security or safety, according to an FBI report on internet crimes. In March, the federal Department of Health and Human Services said reported large breaches involving ransomware had jumped by 264% over the past five years.

A cyberattack this year on Change Healthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group’s Optum division that processes billions of health care transactions every year, crippled the business of providers, pharmacies, and hospitals.

In May, UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty told lawmakers the company paid a $22 million ransom as a result of the Change Healthcare attack — which occurred after hackers accessed a company portal that didn’t have multifactor authentication, a basic cybersecurity tool.

The Biden administration in recent months has pushed to bolster health care cybersecurity standards, but it’s not clear which new measures will be required.

In January, HHS nudged companies to improve email security, add multifactor authentication, and institute cybersecurity training and testing, among other voluntary measures. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is expected to release new requirements for hospitals, but the scope and timing are unclear. The same is true of an update HHS is expected to make to patient privacy regulations.

HHS said the voluntary measures “will inform the creation of new enforceable cybersecurity standards,” department spokesperson Jeff Nesbit said in a statement.

“The recent cyberattack at Ascension only underscores the need for everyone in the health care ecosystem to do their part to secure their systems and protect patients,” Nesbit said.

Meanwhile, lobbyists for the hospital industry contend cybersecurity mandates or penalties are misplaced and would curtail hospitals’ resources to fend off attacks.

“Hospitals and health systems are not the primary source of cyber risk exposure facing the health care sector,” the American Hospital Association, the largest lobbying group for U.S. hospitals, said in an April statement prepared for U.S. House lawmakers. Most large data breaches that hit hospitals in 2023 originated with third-party “business associates” or other health entities, including CMS itself, the AHA statement said.

Hospitals consolidating into large multistate health systems face increased risk of data breaches and ransomware attacks, according to one study. Ascension in 2022 was the third-largest hospital chain in the U.S. by number of beds, according to the most recent data from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

And while cybersecurity regulations can quickly become outdated, they can at least make it clear that if health systems fail to implement basic protections there “should be consequences for that,” Jim Bagian, a former director of the National Center for Patient Safety at the Veterans Health Administration, told Michigan Public’s Stateside.

Patients can pay the price when lapses occur. Those in hospital care face a greater likelihood of death during a cyberattack, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

Workers concerned about patient safety at Ascension hospitals in Michigan have called for the company to make changes.

“We implore Ascension to recognize the internal problems that continue to plague its hospitals, both publicly and transparently,” said Dina Carlisle, a nurse and the president of the OPEIU Local 40 union, which represents nurses at Ascension Providence Rochester. At least 125 staff members at that Ascension hospital have signed a petition asking administrators to temporarily reduce elective surgeries and nonemergency patient admissions, like under the protocols many hospitals adopted early in the covid-19 pandemic.

Watson, the Kansas ICU nurse, said in late May that nurses had urged management to bring in more nurses to help manage the workflow. “Everything that we say has fallen on deaf ears,” she said.

“It is very hard to be a nurse at Ascension right now,” Watson said in late May. “It is very hard to be a patient at Ascension right now.”

If you’re a patient or worker at an Ascension hospital and would like to tell KFF Health News about your experiences, click here to share your story with us.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Bariatric surgery may lower the risk for breast cancer in women with obesity, particularly in premenopausal women and in women with high insulin levels at baseline.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with a lower risk for cancer in people with obesity, as well as female-specific cancers in women with obesity, especially those with higher baseline insulin levels. But there is a need for large prospective studies with more detailed patient information.
• The current secondary analysis included 2867 matched women (mean age, 48 years) from a prospective nonrandomized Swedish trial, which recruited men and women who had obesity between 1987 and 2001.
• Overall, 1420 women underwent bariatric surgery, and 1447 received usual care.
• Median baseline insulin levels were 15.8 μIU/L. In the surgery group, 68.3% of patients had vertical banded gastroplasty, 18.3% underwent gastric banding, and 13.4% underwent gastric bypass.
• The main outcome was breast cancer incidence, as identified from Swedish National Cancer Registry.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up of 23.9 years, 66 breast cancer events occurred in the surgery group and 88 in the usual care group (P = .02).
• Bariatric surgery was associated with a 33% lower risk for breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.67), after excluding cases that occurred within the first 3 years (to account for any undiagnosed breast cancer at baseline) and adjusting for age, body mass index, alcohol, and smoking status.
• Looking at the menopausal status at baseline, bariatric surgery was associated with a reduced risk for breast cancer in premenopausal women (aHR, 0.64) but not postmenopausal women (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .54).
• Bariatric surgery was also associated with a lower risk for breast cancer in women with baseline insulin levels above the median (aHR, 0.55) than in those with baseline insulin levels below the median (aHR, 1.01).

IN PRACTICE:

“The surgical treatment benefit was predominantly seen in women with hyperinsulinemia, suggesting insulin may be used as a predictor of treatment effect,” the authors wrote. Authors of an accompanying editorial, however, cautioned that “it is not known if insulin levels or insulin resistance are true biomarkers of breast cancer risk in patients with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery” and urged further research into underlying biological mechanisms.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Felipe M. Kristensson, MD, from Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, the Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Surgery. The accompanying editorial was led by Swati A. Kulkarni, MD, of the Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was not randomized. Breast cancer was not a predefined outcome of the main trial. Most patients underwent vertical banded gastroplasty, which is rarely used and could limit applicability of the results; however, vertical banded gastroplasty results in weight loss similar to that observed after sleeve gastrectomy. Follow-up values for insulin and insulin resistance were not available. The researchers noted significant differences in 12 out of 17 baseline characteristics between the two groups, including a larger proportion of postmenopausal women in the usual care group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish state, Swedish Research Council, the Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland, and the Adlerbert Research Foundation. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.