User login
Crossing State Lines: PA Licensure Compact Coming Soon
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now.
In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.
How the PA Compact Works
The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.
The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.
How the PA Compact Helps
The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.
PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.
One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.
A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.
Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.
If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Follow-Up Outcomes Data Often Missing for FDA Drug Approvals Based on Surrogate Markers
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.
Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.
The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.
Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.
“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.
The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.
In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.
Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.
Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.
“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”
Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
Surrogate Markers on the Rise
Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.
The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.
A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.
Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.
“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.
The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”
If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.
“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”
Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Specialists Are ‘Underwater’ With Some Insurance-Preferred Biosimilars
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Chatbots Seem More Empathetic Than Docs in Cancer Discussions
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.
One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.
While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.
Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.
Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. : quality, empathy, and readability.
Q&A With Author of New Research
Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.
Question: What is novel about this study?
Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.
Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?
Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.
Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?
Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.
Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?
Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.
Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.
With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.
Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’
Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?
Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.
Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?
Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.
Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.
This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.
This Q&A was edited for clarity.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Pediatric Dermatologists Beat ChatGPT on Board Questions
In an experiment that pitted the wits of results from a small single-center study showed.
“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”
For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.
On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.
“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”
Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.
“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”
Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”
In addition, the study “highlights that ChatGPT can be an aid to support thinking through differentials based on data entered by a clinician who understands how to phrase queries, especially if provided with enough data while respecting patient privacy, in the context of fact checking responses,” Dr. Ilyas said. “This underscores the fact that AI tools can be helpful to clinicians in assimilating various data points entered. However, ultimately, the tool is only able to support an output based on the information it has access to.” She added, “ChatGPT cannot be relied on to provide a single diagnosis with the clinician still responsible for making a final diagnosis. The tool is not definitive and cannot assimilate data that is not entered correctly.”
The study was not funded, and the study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Buethe and Dr. Ilyas, who were not involved with the study, had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
In an experiment that pitted the wits of results from a small single-center study showed.
“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”
For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.
On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.
“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”
Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.
“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”
Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”
In addition, the study “highlights that ChatGPT can be an aid to support thinking through differentials based on data entered by a clinician who understands how to phrase queries, especially if provided with enough data while respecting patient privacy, in the context of fact checking responses,” Dr. Ilyas said. “This underscores the fact that AI tools can be helpful to clinicians in assimilating various data points entered. However, ultimately, the tool is only able to support an output based on the information it has access to.” She added, “ChatGPT cannot be relied on to provide a single diagnosis with the clinician still responsible for making a final diagnosis. The tool is not definitive and cannot assimilate data that is not entered correctly.”
The study was not funded, and the study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Buethe and Dr. Ilyas, who were not involved with the study, had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
In an experiment that pitted the wits of results from a small single-center study showed.
“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”
For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.
On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).
The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.
“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”
Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.
“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”
Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”
In addition, the study “highlights that ChatGPT can be an aid to support thinking through differentials based on data entered by a clinician who understands how to phrase queries, especially if provided with enough data while respecting patient privacy, in the context of fact checking responses,” Dr. Ilyas said. “This underscores the fact that AI tools can be helpful to clinicians in assimilating various data points entered. However, ultimately, the tool is only able to support an output based on the information it has access to.” She added, “ChatGPT cannot be relied on to provide a single diagnosis with the clinician still responsible for making a final diagnosis. The tool is not definitive and cannot assimilate data that is not entered correctly.”
The study was not funded, and the study authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Buethe and Dr. Ilyas, who were not involved with the study, had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
When Medicine Isn’t the Last Stop
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
PCP Compensation, Part 4
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
PCP Compensation, Part 3
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In Part 2 of this series on PCP Compensation, I concluded by saying that it is possible, maybe even likely, that growing your panel size will further endanger your health. When you share this concern with your boss, based purely on economic principles, he or she should answer, “How about charging more per visit?” However, your boss knows that third-party payers are going to look askance at that simple strategy. He or she may then suggest that you make each visit worth more to justify the increased charge.
Here is where the topic of Relative Value Units (RVUs) raises its ugly head.
Before the invention of “health insurance,” when the patient paid for his or her own office visits, it was an unspoken negotiation between patient and physician that decided the value of the care.
When third-party payers first came on the scene, the value of the visit was based roughly on the time spent with the patient. Coupling time spent with value gave no credit to more experienced or skilled physicians who were more efficient at managing their patients. If, on average, it took me 10 minutes to effectively manage an ear infection and my younger associate 20 minutes, should he or she be paid twice as much as I’m paid?
But, value spent on a crude estimate of time spent was a system ripe for abuse.
I have no way of knowing what other physicians were doing, but I suspect I was not alone in factoring my own assessment of “complexity” into the calculation when deciding what to bill for a visit, giving only a passing glance at the recommended time-based definitions of short, standard, and complex visits. The payers then began demanding a more definable method of determining complexity. The result was the RVU, the labor-intensive, but no more accurate, system in which the provider must build a case to defend his or her charges.
Unfortunately, the institution of the RVU system was a major contributor to the death of the short visit. The extra work required to submit and defend the coding of any visit meant that, from a strictly clerical point of view, the short visit became as costly to the business to process as a more complex visit. The result was that every astute business consultant worth his or her salt would begin with the recommendation to “Code up!” Do whatever it takes to build your case for a more complex visit even though it may be a stretch. (It would certainly mean a lot more time-gobbling documenting.) Stop doing short visits. They are your loss leaders.
Before there were RVUs, there was a way physicians could be profitable and include short visits in their schedule. But it meant the provider had to be efficient. But patients generally don’t like going to follow-up visits they see as needless. And, more often than not, the patients are correct. However, patients love the same-day availability that an abundance of short visits in a primary care provider’s schedule can offer. The patient who knows that he or she won’t have to wait weeks or months to see the provider is far less likely to show up at a visit with a laundry list as long as their arm of problems and questions they have saved up while they were waiting to get an appointment. It used to be possible to provide efficient and profitable care by including short visits in a PCP’s schedule. Whether it can still be done under the current RVU system is unclear and probably doubtful.
In the last and final Letter in this series, we will begin with a brief look at efficiency and a PCP’s contribution to overhead before exploring the more difficult subject of defining the quality of a provider’s care and how this could relate to compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Darker Skin Tones Underrepresented on Skin Cancer Education Websites
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF DRUGS IN DERMATOLOGY
Rural Health System ‘Teetering on Brink’ of Collapse, Says AMA
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans.
He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live.
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott.
He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said.
Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years.
Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas
Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt.
He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas.
“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said.
Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”
He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.
Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily.
“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.
When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit.
“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said.
But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.
“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.