Business of Medicine

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In 2014, when the Food and Drug Administration found serious problems with a life-sustaining heart pump, its warning letter to the manufacturer threatened to notify other federal health agencies about the inspection’s findings.

But for years, no such alert ever went out. Instead, the agency added the warning letter to an online database alongside thousands of others, following its typical procedures, an FDA spokesperson said.

Agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs went on paying to implant the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, in new patients even though federal inspectors had found problems with the device linked to patient deaths and injuries.

Taxpayer dollars continued to flow to the original device maker, HeartWare, and then to the company that acquired it in 2016, Medtronic, for 7 years while the issues raised in the warning letter remained unresolved.

If crucial safety information in FDA warning letters doesn’t make it to other arms of the government responsible for deciding which medical devices to pay for, experts said patients are the ones put at risk.

“It’s clearly a breakdown of communication,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches medical device safety and regulation. “It’s not just the money, obviously. It’s people’s lives.”

The FDA acknowledged that it doesn’t directly notify other agencies when it issues warning letters, pointing instead to its online database, which is accessible to both government officials and the public. “The FDA’s decisions are intended to be patient-centric with the health and safety of device users as our highest priority,” the agency spokesperson said in an email.

The HeartWare letter was removed from the public database about 2 years ago, even though the problems remained unresolved and patients were still receiving implants. The database clears out letters that are more than 5 years old.

CMS, which oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would not say why it continued paying for a device that didn’t meet government standards. It directed questions about the HeartWare warning letter to the FDA. “CMS does not have oversight of the manufacturing and related safety assessments of a medical device manufacturer,” a spokesperson said in an email.

The spokesperson noted that CMS requires heart pump patients to have specialized medical teams managing their care, which should monitor FDA communications regarding safety of devices.

CMS doesn’t track data on devices by manufacturer, so it’s essentially impossible to calculate its total spending on HVADs. One 2018 medical journal study found that Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than half the cost of all heart pump implants from 2009 to 2014. If that rate of spending continued, CMS may have spent more than $400 million on implanting HVADs since 2014.

A spokesperson for the VA said his agency was never notified about the HeartWare warning letter. The VA paid HeartWare and Medtronic more than $3 million after the FDA issued the letter in 2014. It offered this explanation for why: “It’s important to note that FDA Warning Letters are notifications issued to manufacturers found to be in significant violation of federal regulations. They are not product recalls.”

In the case of the HVAD, the FDA’s failure to make sure its warning reached beyond the manufacturer may have had life-and-death consequences.

In August, ProPublica reported that federal inspectors continued finding problems at the HVAD’s manufacturing plant for years. Meanwhile, the FDA received thousands of reports of suspicious deaths and injuries and more than a dozen high-risk safety alerts from the manufacturer.

The documents detailed one horrifying device failure after another. A father of four died after his device suddenly failed and his teenage daughter couldn’t resuscitate him. Another patient’s heart tissue was charred after a pump short-circuited and overheated. A teenager died after vomiting blood as his mother struggled to restart a defective pump.

In June, Medtronic ended sales and implants of the device, citing new data that showed patients with HVADs had a higher rate of deaths and strokes than those with a competing heart pump.

Medtronic declined to comment for this story. It has previously said it believed that after the 2014 warning letter the benefits of the HVAD still outweighed the risks for patients with severe heart failure.

Experts said the lack of communication between federal agencies when serious device problems are found is baffling but not surprising. It fits a broader trend of device regulators focusing more on evaluating new products than monitoring the ones already on the market.

“The priority is to get more medical devices out there, paid for and getting used,” said Dr. Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale University who studies medical device regulation.

Other U.S. health care regulators move more forcefully when providers and suppliers don’t meet the government’s minimum safety requirements for an extended period, putting patients at risk.

Take hospitals. When inspectors find a facility is not meeting safety standards, CMS can issue an immediate jeopardy citation and, if problems aren’t fixed, move to withhold federal payments, which make up substantial portions of most hospitals’ revenues. In the rare cases when hospitals don’t take sufficient action, CMS follows through and revokes funding.

Redberg, the UCSF cardiologist, said the lack of similar action for medical devices offers a clear “opportunity for improvement.” At minimum, the FDA could establish processes to directly inform other agencies when it issues warning letters and finds serious problems with devices being sold in the United States.

“If the agency’s mission is to protect public health, they would want to do these things and move quickly,” she said.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Rheumatologists seeking fellowships continue to show a preference for adult programs. Adult rheumatology programs filled nearly 100% of positions this year, but pediatric rheumatology programs filled only 69% of available slots, echoing trends of previous years.

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) issued results for 2021’s Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP) and Pediatric Specialties Match (PSM) in December.

“In pediatric rheumatology, like many other pediatric specialties, the limiting factor is the number of interested candidates. The number of available positions has not really changed over the last several years, but multiple positions again remained unfilled this year,” said Beth Marston, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, in a statement.

Rheumatology was one of seven medical specialties that filled at least 95% of fellowship positions this year.

The specialty filled 120 of 125 enrolled programs (96%) and 266 of 272 certified positions (97.8%) in 2021. A total of 42.1% of the matched applicants comprised MD graduates, followed by foreign (27.1%), U.S. foreign (16.5%), and DO graduates (14.3%).

Among 357 applicants preferring this specialty in 2021, 73.9% (n = 264) matched to rheumatology. This meant that 22.1% did not match to any program. This scenario has played out over the last several years, Dr. Marston noted. Additional support for funding and the creation of more fellowship positions would translate to an increase in rheumatology graduates entering the workforce.

This could help mitigate workforce shortages that the ACR projected in 2015, she added.

Pediatric program applicants remain stagnant

For pediatric fellowships, the numbers weren’t as robust. Just 60% of 32 enrolled programs and 69.2% positions filled in 2021. MD graduates comprised most of the matched applicants (77.8%), followed by U.S. foreign (14.8%) and foreign and DO graduates (3.7% each). Overall, 27 out of 28 applicants or 96.4% matched to this specialty, a metric that’s remained steady but has not grown in recent years, Dr. Marston said.

This “suggests the need for additional efforts to understand and address barriers to choosing rheumatology fellowship training as a career path for pediatricians,” she said. The ACR’s Committee on Training and Workforce recently initiated a survey of combined medicine-pediatrics graduates in rheumatology to gain insights on why these graduates chose this career path.

The ACR is also looking into increasing access to rheumatology specialty care in underserved areas and finding creative solutions for increasing and filling rheumatology fellowship positions.
 

Largest match on record

Overall, 7,435 applicants participated in the 2021 MSMP, the largest on record. NRMP reported that 2,277 programs submitted rank order lists and offered 6,368 positions, an increase of more than 11% from 2020, respectively. A total of 90.4% positions (n = 5,759) were filled.

“The 2021 MSMP matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions set to begin July 2022,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, said in a statement. “It’s rewarding to watch the MSMP grow, not only in terms of applicant interest and available training positions, but also from its launch 20 years ago with only three internal medicine subspecialties.”

NRMP largely attributed the increase in positions to the addition of critical care medicine, the latest subspecialty to join the MSMP. All fellows begin their training in July 2022.

The PSM also saw notable increases this year in several metrics. It offered 1,735 positions this year, a 5.9% increase from 2020. Overall, 1,507 positions (86.9%) were filled, a 6.6% increase from last year. 854 programs participated.

Rheumatologists seeking fellowships continue to show a preference for adult programs. Adult rheumatology programs filled nearly 100% of positions this year, but pediatric rheumatology programs filled only 69% of available slots, echoing trends of previous years.

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) issued results for 2021’s Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP) and Pediatric Specialties Match (PSM) in December.

“In pediatric rheumatology, like many other pediatric specialties, the limiting factor is the number of interested candidates. The number of available positions has not really changed over the last several years, but multiple positions again remained unfilled this year,” said Beth Marston, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, in a statement.

Rheumatology was one of seven medical specialties that filled at least 95% of fellowship positions this year.

The specialty filled 120 of 125 enrolled programs (96%) and 266 of 272 certified positions (97.8%) in 2021. A total of 42.1% of the matched applicants comprised MD graduates, followed by foreign (27.1%), U.S. foreign (16.5%), and DO graduates (14.3%).

Among 357 applicants preferring this specialty in 2021, 73.9% (n = 264) matched to rheumatology. This meant that 22.1% did not match to any program. This scenario has played out over the last several years, Dr. Marston noted. Additional support for funding and the creation of more fellowship positions would translate to an increase in rheumatology graduates entering the workforce.

This could help mitigate workforce shortages that the ACR projected in 2015, she added.

Pediatric program applicants remain stagnant

For pediatric fellowships, the numbers weren’t as robust. Just 60% of 32 enrolled programs and 69.2% positions filled in 2021. MD graduates comprised most of the matched applicants (77.8%), followed by U.S. foreign (14.8%) and foreign and DO graduates (3.7% each). Overall, 27 out of 28 applicants or 96.4% matched to this specialty, a metric that’s remained steady but has not grown in recent years, Dr. Marston said.

This “suggests the need for additional efforts to understand and address barriers to choosing rheumatology fellowship training as a career path for pediatricians,” she said. The ACR’s Committee on Training and Workforce recently initiated a survey of combined medicine-pediatrics graduates in rheumatology to gain insights on why these graduates chose this career path.

The ACR is also looking into increasing access to rheumatology specialty care in underserved areas and finding creative solutions for increasing and filling rheumatology fellowship positions.
 

Largest match on record

Overall, 7,435 applicants participated in the 2021 MSMP, the largest on record. NRMP reported that 2,277 programs submitted rank order lists and offered 6,368 positions, an increase of more than 11% from 2020, respectively. A total of 90.4% positions (n = 5,759) were filled.

“The 2021 MSMP matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions set to begin July 2022,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, said in a statement. “It’s rewarding to watch the MSMP grow, not only in terms of applicant interest and available training positions, but also from its launch 20 years ago with only three internal medicine subspecialties.”

NRMP largely attributed the increase in positions to the addition of critical care medicine, the latest subspecialty to join the MSMP. All fellows begin their training in July 2022.

The PSM also saw notable increases this year in several metrics. It offered 1,735 positions this year, a 5.9% increase from 2020. Overall, 1,507 positions (86.9%) were filled, a 6.6% increase from last year. 854 programs participated.

Rheumatologists seeking fellowships continue to show a preference for adult programs. Adult rheumatology programs filled nearly 100% of positions this year, but pediatric rheumatology programs filled only 69% of available slots, echoing trends of previous years.

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) issued results for 2021’s Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP) and Pediatric Specialties Match (PSM) in December.

“In pediatric rheumatology, like many other pediatric specialties, the limiting factor is the number of interested candidates. The number of available positions has not really changed over the last several years, but multiple positions again remained unfilled this year,” said Beth Marston, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, in a statement.

Rheumatology was one of seven medical specialties that filled at least 95% of fellowship positions this year.

The specialty filled 120 of 125 enrolled programs (96%) and 266 of 272 certified positions (97.8%) in 2021. A total of 42.1% of the matched applicants comprised MD graduates, followed by foreign (27.1%), U.S. foreign (16.5%), and DO graduates (14.3%).

Among 357 applicants preferring this specialty in 2021, 73.9% (n = 264) matched to rheumatology. This meant that 22.1% did not match to any program. This scenario has played out over the last several years, Dr. Marston noted. Additional support for funding and the creation of more fellowship positions would translate to an increase in rheumatology graduates entering the workforce.

This could help mitigate workforce shortages that the ACR projected in 2015, she added.

Pediatric program applicants remain stagnant

For pediatric fellowships, the numbers weren’t as robust. Just 60% of 32 enrolled programs and 69.2% positions filled in 2021. MD graduates comprised most of the matched applicants (77.8%), followed by U.S. foreign (14.8%) and foreign and DO graduates (3.7% each). Overall, 27 out of 28 applicants or 96.4% matched to this specialty, a metric that’s remained steady but has not grown in recent years, Dr. Marston said.

This “suggests the need for additional efforts to understand and address barriers to choosing rheumatology fellowship training as a career path for pediatricians,” she said. The ACR’s Committee on Training and Workforce recently initiated a survey of combined medicine-pediatrics graduates in rheumatology to gain insights on why these graduates chose this career path.

The ACR is also looking into increasing access to rheumatology specialty care in underserved areas and finding creative solutions for increasing and filling rheumatology fellowship positions.
 

Largest match on record

Overall, 7,435 applicants participated in the 2021 MSMP, the largest on record. NRMP reported that 2,277 programs submitted rank order lists and offered 6,368 positions, an increase of more than 11% from 2020, respectively. A total of 90.4% positions (n = 5,759) were filled.

“The 2021 MSMP matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions set to begin July 2022,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, said in a statement. “It’s rewarding to watch the MSMP grow, not only in terms of applicant interest and available training positions, but also from its launch 20 years ago with only three internal medicine subspecialties.”

NRMP largely attributed the increase in positions to the addition of critical care medicine, the latest subspecialty to join the MSMP. All fellows begin their training in July 2022.

The PSM also saw notable increases this year in several metrics. It offered 1,735 positions this year, a 5.9% increase from 2020. Overall, 1,507 positions (86.9%) were filled, a 6.6% increase from last year. 854 programs participated.