Business of Medicine

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent agency to advise Congress on Medicare (MC) policy, much of which pertains to payment issues. The 17 commissioners meet publicly and issue two reports a year with their recommendations to Congress, who then decides whether to enact these recommendations or not.

One MedPAC recommendation in 2023 was quickly introduced in the House of Representatives in May and passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 49-0. That recommendation relates to “site neutrality” payments to MC providers. If passed by Congress, it would result in some “site-neutral” cuts to hospitals. That MedPAC recommendation was acted upon very quickly by Congress. Consequently, it is important to discuss the potential negative ramifications of other MedPAC recommendations released in June regarding reimbursement of Medicare Part B drugs and proactively educate Congress accordingly on those ramifications.

Medicare Part B drugs

Medicare Part B drugs are those administered by providers, unlike the Part D medications which are generally obtained through pharmacies. Presently, MC reimburses providers for the administered Part B medication based on the average sales price (ASP) plus 6%. However, with sequestration, that add-on amount is reduced to ASP plus 4.3%. It has long been touted by MedPAC and other policy makers that physicians choose to infuse higher-priced drugs in order to increase reimbursements. That has not been borne out when it comes to rheumatologists, and, in fact, a retired MedPAC commissioner even stated that premise did not hold true for rheumatologists.

Regardless, it continues to be suggested that MC should reduce its costs for Part B medications by reducing reimbursement to physicians. It should be noted that often the margins on the drugs are already quite thin, and at times the reimbursement amount, compared with the acquisition cost of the drug even leaves the physician “underwater.”

A few years ago, there was a proposed Part B demonstration project that essentially removed the +6% add-on and replaced it with a very low fixed amount that would have left most physicians “underwater” in their Part B drug acquisitions. This was vigorously opposed by physicians around the country, who let Congress know exactly how they felt. We have been told that the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations was one of the most vociferous organizations that helped in fighting back this proposal and resulting in its withdrawal.

MedPAC recommendations

That brings us back to MedPAC. In June, MedPAC released recommendations to Congress in an attempt to address the “high price of drugs” covered under MC Part B. Unfortunately, the recommendations do nothing to address the root cause of high drug prices, but once again attempt to balance MC expenditures on the backs of physicians. In this case, it is physicians who infuse Part B drugs in their office to chronically ill patients. In-office infusions have been shown to be the most cost-effective site of care, as well as being safer when compared with home infusion for a number of rheumatologic medications.

One of the MedPAC recommendations gives the Secretary of Health & Human Services the authority to establish a single ASP for drugs with “similar health effects.” The ambiguity of the phrase “similar health effects” should put us all on alert as to the significant unintended consequences that may result. For example, HHS could assign one ASP to all drugs that treat rheumatoid arthritis based on the lowest ASP of the group. This certainly would lead to a number of drugs being out of reach for MC beneficiaries if the artificial ASP of the medication is much lower than the actual acquisition cost of the drug, leaving physicians unable to acquire it. Yet, MedPAC states this recommendation would not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Another recommendation would require HHS to reduce or eliminate the add-on percentage to the ASP for higher-priced drugs and/or put in an added fixed amount. This recommendation is clearly reminiscent of the old ill-conceived Part B demonstration project.

A fixed “add-on amount” might work if it is sufficient to cover the overhead of maintaining a provider’s infusion suite. But if practices are left underwater in their purchases of certain Part B drugs, there may be no choice but to stop offering those infusions to MC beneficiaries or – worst-case scenario – shut the door completely. Yet again, MedPAC stated that this recommendation would not result in a loss of access to these treatments for MC beneficiaries.
 

Loss of access?

Rheumatologists have gone to great lengths to continue offering care to MC patients in spite of the yearly cuts and threats of more cuts in the future to physician reimbursements. In addition, physicians have no annual inflationary update to their reimbursements. I am not sure how MedPAC concludes that continued cuts to physician fee schedules, along with a decrease in reimbursement for administered drugs, will not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Finally, the timing on these recommendations is confusing, considering that implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has just begun. Next quarter, a number of Part B drugs will be subject to inflationary penalties; there will also be additional Part B biosimilars coming to market, resulting in lower ASPs. And don’t forget, the IRA just instituted an ASP plus 8% reimbursement for biosimilars in an attempt to get physicians to do something that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has asked them not to do. That is, choose a drug based on its reimbursement, not necessarily the one which is right for the patient.

Overall, with so many variables up in the air, now is not the time to create even more uncertainty for physicians and the Medicare patients that they take care of.

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].

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent agency to advise Congress on Medicare (MC) policy, much of which pertains to payment issues. The 17 commissioners meet publicly and issue two reports a year with their recommendations to Congress, who then decides whether to enact these recommendations or not.

One MedPAC recommendation in 2023 was quickly introduced in the House of Representatives in May and passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 49-0. That recommendation relates to “site neutrality” payments to MC providers. If passed by Congress, it would result in some “site-neutral” cuts to hospitals. That MedPAC recommendation was acted upon very quickly by Congress. Consequently, it is important to discuss the potential negative ramifications of other MedPAC recommendations released in June regarding reimbursement of Medicare Part B drugs and proactively educate Congress accordingly on those ramifications.

Medicare Part B drugs

Medicare Part B drugs are those administered by providers, unlike the Part D medications which are generally obtained through pharmacies. Presently, MC reimburses providers for the administered Part B medication based on the average sales price (ASP) plus 6%. However, with sequestration, that add-on amount is reduced to ASP plus 4.3%. It has long been touted by MedPAC and other policy makers that physicians choose to infuse higher-priced drugs in order to increase reimbursements. That has not been borne out when it comes to rheumatologists, and, in fact, a retired MedPAC commissioner even stated that premise did not hold true for rheumatologists.

Regardless, it continues to be suggested that MC should reduce its costs for Part B medications by reducing reimbursement to physicians. It should be noted that often the margins on the drugs are already quite thin, and at times the reimbursement amount, compared with the acquisition cost of the drug even leaves the physician “underwater.”

A few years ago, there was a proposed Part B demonstration project that essentially removed the +6% add-on and replaced it with a very low fixed amount that would have left most physicians “underwater” in their Part B drug acquisitions. This was vigorously opposed by physicians around the country, who let Congress know exactly how they felt. We have been told that the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations was one of the most vociferous organizations that helped in fighting back this proposal and resulting in its withdrawal.

MedPAC recommendations

That brings us back to MedPAC. In June, MedPAC released recommendations to Congress in an attempt to address the “high price of drugs” covered under MC Part B. Unfortunately, the recommendations do nothing to address the root cause of high drug prices, but once again attempt to balance MC expenditures on the backs of physicians. In this case, it is physicians who infuse Part B drugs in their office to chronically ill patients. In-office infusions have been shown to be the most cost-effective site of care, as well as being safer when compared with home infusion for a number of rheumatologic medications.

One of the MedPAC recommendations gives the Secretary of Health & Human Services the authority to establish a single ASP for drugs with “similar health effects.” The ambiguity of the phrase “similar health effects” should put us all on alert as to the significant unintended consequences that may result. For example, HHS could assign one ASP to all drugs that treat rheumatoid arthritis based on the lowest ASP of the group. This certainly would lead to a number of drugs being out of reach for MC beneficiaries if the artificial ASP of the medication is much lower than the actual acquisition cost of the drug, leaving physicians unable to acquire it. Yet, MedPAC states this recommendation would not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Another recommendation would require HHS to reduce or eliminate the add-on percentage to the ASP for higher-priced drugs and/or put in an added fixed amount. This recommendation is clearly reminiscent of the old ill-conceived Part B demonstration project.

A fixed “add-on amount” might work if it is sufficient to cover the overhead of maintaining a provider’s infusion suite. But if practices are left underwater in their purchases of certain Part B drugs, there may be no choice but to stop offering those infusions to MC beneficiaries or – worst-case scenario – shut the door completely. Yet again, MedPAC stated that this recommendation would not result in a loss of access to these treatments for MC beneficiaries.
 

Loss of access?

Rheumatologists have gone to great lengths to continue offering care to MC patients in spite of the yearly cuts and threats of more cuts in the future to physician reimbursements. In addition, physicians have no annual inflationary update to their reimbursements. I am not sure how MedPAC concludes that continued cuts to physician fee schedules, along with a decrease in reimbursement for administered drugs, will not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Finally, the timing on these recommendations is confusing, considering that implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has just begun. Next quarter, a number of Part B drugs will be subject to inflationary penalties; there will also be additional Part B biosimilars coming to market, resulting in lower ASPs. And don’t forget, the IRA just instituted an ASP plus 8% reimbursement for biosimilars in an attempt to get physicians to do something that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has asked them not to do. That is, choose a drug based on its reimbursement, not necessarily the one which is right for the patient.

Overall, with so many variables up in the air, now is not the time to create even more uncertainty for physicians and the Medicare patients that they take care of.

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].

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent agency to advise Congress on Medicare (MC) policy, much of which pertains to payment issues. The 17 commissioners meet publicly and issue two reports a year with their recommendations to Congress, who then decides whether to enact these recommendations or not.

One MedPAC recommendation in 2023 was quickly introduced in the House of Representatives in May and passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 49-0. That recommendation relates to “site neutrality” payments to MC providers. If passed by Congress, it would result in some “site-neutral” cuts to hospitals. That MedPAC recommendation was acted upon very quickly by Congress. Consequently, it is important to discuss the potential negative ramifications of other MedPAC recommendations released in June regarding reimbursement of Medicare Part B drugs and proactively educate Congress accordingly on those ramifications.

Medicare Part B drugs

Medicare Part B drugs are those administered by providers, unlike the Part D medications which are generally obtained through pharmacies. Presently, MC reimburses providers for the administered Part B medication based on the average sales price (ASP) plus 6%. However, with sequestration, that add-on amount is reduced to ASP plus 4.3%. It has long been touted by MedPAC and other policy makers that physicians choose to infuse higher-priced drugs in order to increase reimbursements. That has not been borne out when it comes to rheumatologists, and, in fact, a retired MedPAC commissioner even stated that premise did not hold true for rheumatologists.

Regardless, it continues to be suggested that MC should reduce its costs for Part B medications by reducing reimbursement to physicians. It should be noted that often the margins on the drugs are already quite thin, and at times the reimbursement amount, compared with the acquisition cost of the drug even leaves the physician “underwater.”

A few years ago, there was a proposed Part B demonstration project that essentially removed the +6% add-on and replaced it with a very low fixed amount that would have left most physicians “underwater” in their Part B drug acquisitions. This was vigorously opposed by physicians around the country, who let Congress know exactly how they felt. We have been told that the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations was one of the most vociferous organizations that helped in fighting back this proposal and resulting in its withdrawal.

MedPAC recommendations

That brings us back to MedPAC. In June, MedPAC released recommendations to Congress in an attempt to address the “high price of drugs” covered under MC Part B. Unfortunately, the recommendations do nothing to address the root cause of high drug prices, but once again attempt to balance MC expenditures on the backs of physicians. In this case, it is physicians who infuse Part B drugs in their office to chronically ill patients. In-office infusions have been shown to be the most cost-effective site of care, as well as being safer when compared with home infusion for a number of rheumatologic medications.

One of the MedPAC recommendations gives the Secretary of Health & Human Services the authority to establish a single ASP for drugs with “similar health effects.” The ambiguity of the phrase “similar health effects” should put us all on alert as to the significant unintended consequences that may result. For example, HHS could assign one ASP to all drugs that treat rheumatoid arthritis based on the lowest ASP of the group. This certainly would lead to a number of drugs being out of reach for MC beneficiaries if the artificial ASP of the medication is much lower than the actual acquisition cost of the drug, leaving physicians unable to acquire it. Yet, MedPAC states this recommendation would not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Another recommendation would require HHS to reduce or eliminate the add-on percentage to the ASP for higher-priced drugs and/or put in an added fixed amount. This recommendation is clearly reminiscent of the old ill-conceived Part B demonstration project.

A fixed “add-on amount” might work if it is sufficient to cover the overhead of maintaining a provider’s infusion suite. But if practices are left underwater in their purchases of certain Part B drugs, there may be no choice but to stop offering those infusions to MC beneficiaries or – worst-case scenario – shut the door completely. Yet again, MedPAC stated that this recommendation would not result in a loss of access to these treatments for MC beneficiaries.
 

Loss of access?

Rheumatologists have gone to great lengths to continue offering care to MC patients in spite of the yearly cuts and threats of more cuts in the future to physician reimbursements. In addition, physicians have no annual inflationary update to their reimbursements. I am not sure how MedPAC concludes that continued cuts to physician fee schedules, along with a decrease in reimbursement for administered drugs, will not affect access to care for MC beneficiaries.

Finally, the timing on these recommendations is confusing, considering that implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has just begun. Next quarter, a number of Part B drugs will be subject to inflationary penalties; there will also be additional Part B biosimilars coming to market, resulting in lower ASPs. And don’t forget, the IRA just instituted an ASP plus 8% reimbursement for biosimilars in an attempt to get physicians to do something that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has asked them not to do. That is, choose a drug based on its reimbursement, not necessarily the one which is right for the patient.

Overall, with so many variables up in the air, now is not the time to create even more uncertainty for physicians and the Medicare patients that they take care of.

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].

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

Key takeaways

• Small-town physicians mostly love their practices; they are close to their patients and community, have the opportunity to practice very varied medicine, and feel like they make a difference. But they also struggle with many issues.
• Small practices are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating reimbursements.
• Resources such as access to specialists, equipment, and specialty meds put small-town docs in more precarious situations.

The challenges are mounting for physicians in small-town practices and rural areas, with private equity buying up many practices, the cost of overhead rising, and increased stress in attracting top talent. In the first of a two-part series, this news organization spoke to physicians in small towns around the country to identify some of the pain points squeezing small-town practices’ profits and making patient care more difficult.

Here are how physicians are working to offset the challenges and to make their small-town practices more rewarding.
 

Low reimbursements remain challenging

Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, owner of Fredonia Family Care, a private family medicine practice in Fredonia, Kan. (population 2,132), loves having close relationships with her patients and being an integral part of the community. However, she said that owning the only clinic in her town, which is 90 miles from Wichita, limits her power when negotiating for reimbursements.

“We don’t have bargaining power, so we often will end up getting terribly low reimbursements, especially for Medicaid,” she said. “We pay the price for not being part of a big health system.”

To bolster her ability to get reimbursement price concessions, her practice – which was initially started by her father and now includes four physicians – joined an accountable care organization in 2016.

“By joining other private practices around the state, we made some gains,” said Dr. McKenney, who was born in the hospital where she now works. “It enabled us to sit at the table with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas, for example, and have conversations that they listen to.”
 

Talent recruitment is an ongoing issue

For Ann Lima, MD, a family physician who came to Orofino, Idaho (population 3,000), 8 years ago after her residency in Ventura, Calif., practicing small-town medicine and seeing patients with a myriad of medical issues is a fulfilling challenge, but finding trained providers to join her practice remains problematic.

That’s because the physicians in her practice need to be nimble and to be able to routinely pivot from primary care to obstetrics to emergency medicine, owing to the nature of small-town practicing.

“It’s challenging in terms of finding people who are able to stay on top of all facets of hospital and acute care emergency care as well as OB and primary care,” she said. She noted that, for patients who require additional care, the nearest cities are Spokane, Wash., and Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, both approximately 3 hours away.

“It’s a challenge to find well-trained family physicians who want to do this diverse type of medicine.”

When it comes to staffing at her clinic, Dr. McKenney said it’s been more efficient to train employees from the ground up than try to find health care workers who already have significant experience.

“Right now, I have two 19-year-olds, a 21-year-old, and a 24-year-old working for me,” Dr. McKenney said of her clinic staff, which currently includes four doctors, a nurse practitioner, and 14 employees. “I hired the 19-year-old at age 17 and taught her to be a medical assistant.”

In addition to difficulty in recruiting physicians, nurses, and staff to a small-town practice, trying to find affordable housing makes it difficult to attract staffing in certain locations, said Frank Batcha, MD, a family physician in Hailey, Idaho (population 9,463), and chief of staff at St. Luke’s Wood River Regional Hospital in Ketchum, Idaho, where he has worked since the 1990s.

“We’re a resort community, so housing is unaffordable for somebody with an entry-level job,” he said. The region, a valley that includes Sun Valley, a popular ski resort with about 22,000 residents, is home to a handful of celebrities. It’s a popular destination spot and makes for a beautiful back country to call home.

“But it’s difficult to recruit physicians out of residency for this reason,” said Dr. Batcha. “We call it the scenery tax. It comes with a price.” Idaho is 49th out of 50th in physicians per capita for the entire United States.
 

Resources can be scarce

Another stressor for rural and small-town physicians is access to specialists, resources, and, in some cases, vital equipment.

“We have a general surgeon but no other specialty care,” Dr. Lima said. “This means that we can do acute appendicitis, we can take out gall bladders and do hernia repairs locally, but for significant trauma care and for patients who are very sick with ICU needs, we have to transfer them.”

Weather is also a huge factor that can affect ground ambulance or helicopter travel to a larger hospital.

“If there’s a storm, instead of a 45-minute transfer via helicopter, it’s a 3½ hour drive along mountain and river roads,” said Dr. Lima.

Ultimately, Dr. McKenney wished colleagues better understood the challenges facing rural physicians.

“When I transfer a patient from my hospital to a bigger facility, it’s because I don’t have certain medications on hand or an MRI ready to go,” she said. “It’s not that I don’t know what I’m doing.”

In addition, when she calls for a consult or sends a patient to a larger facility, it’s always because of a lack of resources.

“As rural physicians, we are really well educated and well trained,” she said “Our issue is that we’re practicing in a place with fewer things. But, when we call upon you, just know that we’ve tried everything we can first.”

Dr. McKenney lives and works happily in the town she grew up in and said no place could have given her a warmer welcome. In fact, while she was still finishing school, the townspeople campaigned to get her to come back and practice there – hard to come by that in a big city.

Small-town physicians offered five tactics for making a small-town practice work successfully:

• Develop relationships with specialists in your nearest large facility for referrals.
• Consider joining an ACO to improve work flow, diversify revenue streams, and maintain independence.
• Create a culture that’s welcoming to all incoming young professionals.
• Host medical students and residents as part of their education. “If they learn about your community, your practice, and rural healthcare early on, they will be more likely to be interested in coming back to serve that same community,” said Dr. McKenney.
• Recruit more than one physician if possible. “It’s really scary for new physicians to go out and practice on their own right out of training. Most rural communities need more than one more doctor anyway, and this gives them a built-in support system from the beginning,” said Dr. McKenney.

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

Key takeaways

• Small-town physicians mostly love their practices; they are close to their patients and community, have the opportunity to practice very varied medicine, and feel like they make a difference. But they also struggle with many issues.
• Small practices are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating reimbursements.
• Resources such as access to specialists, equipment, and specialty meds put small-town docs in more precarious situations.

The challenges are mounting for physicians in small-town practices and rural areas, with private equity buying up many practices, the cost of overhead rising, and increased stress in attracting top talent. In the first of a two-part series, this news organization spoke to physicians in small towns around the country to identify some of the pain points squeezing small-town practices’ profits and making patient care more difficult.

Here are how physicians are working to offset the challenges and to make their small-town practices more rewarding.
 

Low reimbursements remain challenging

Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, owner of Fredonia Family Care, a private family medicine practice in Fredonia, Kan. (population 2,132), loves having close relationships with her patients and being an integral part of the community. However, she said that owning the only clinic in her town, which is 90 miles from Wichita, limits her power when negotiating for reimbursements.

“We don’t have bargaining power, so we often will end up getting terribly low reimbursements, especially for Medicaid,” she said. “We pay the price for not being part of a big health system.”

To bolster her ability to get reimbursement price concessions, her practice – which was initially started by her father and now includes four physicians – joined an accountable care organization in 2016.

“By joining other private practices around the state, we made some gains,” said Dr. McKenney, who was born in the hospital where she now works. “It enabled us to sit at the table with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas, for example, and have conversations that they listen to.”
 

Talent recruitment is an ongoing issue

For Ann Lima, MD, a family physician who came to Orofino, Idaho (population 3,000), 8 years ago after her residency in Ventura, Calif., practicing small-town medicine and seeing patients with a myriad of medical issues is a fulfilling challenge, but finding trained providers to join her practice remains problematic.

That’s because the physicians in her practice need to be nimble and to be able to routinely pivot from primary care to obstetrics to emergency medicine, owing to the nature of small-town practicing.

“It’s challenging in terms of finding people who are able to stay on top of all facets of hospital and acute care emergency care as well as OB and primary care,” she said. She noted that, for patients who require additional care, the nearest cities are Spokane, Wash., and Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, both approximately 3 hours away.

“It’s a challenge to find well-trained family physicians who want to do this diverse type of medicine.”

When it comes to staffing at her clinic, Dr. McKenney said it’s been more efficient to train employees from the ground up than try to find health care workers who already have significant experience.

“Right now, I have two 19-year-olds, a 21-year-old, and a 24-year-old working for me,” Dr. McKenney said of her clinic staff, which currently includes four doctors, a nurse practitioner, and 14 employees. “I hired the 19-year-old at age 17 and taught her to be a medical assistant.”

In addition to difficulty in recruiting physicians, nurses, and staff to a small-town practice, trying to find affordable housing makes it difficult to attract staffing in certain locations, said Frank Batcha, MD, a family physician in Hailey, Idaho (population 9,463), and chief of staff at St. Luke’s Wood River Regional Hospital in Ketchum, Idaho, where he has worked since the 1990s.

“We’re a resort community, so housing is unaffordable for somebody with an entry-level job,” he said. The region, a valley that includes Sun Valley, a popular ski resort with about 22,000 residents, is home to a handful of celebrities. It’s a popular destination spot and makes for a beautiful back country to call home.

“But it’s difficult to recruit physicians out of residency for this reason,” said Dr. Batcha. “We call it the scenery tax. It comes with a price.” Idaho is 49th out of 50th in physicians per capita for the entire United States.
 

Resources can be scarce

Another stressor for rural and small-town physicians is access to specialists, resources, and, in some cases, vital equipment.

“We have a general surgeon but no other specialty care,” Dr. Lima said. “This means that we can do acute appendicitis, we can take out gall bladders and do hernia repairs locally, but for significant trauma care and for patients who are very sick with ICU needs, we have to transfer them.”

Weather is also a huge factor that can affect ground ambulance or helicopter travel to a larger hospital.

“If there’s a storm, instead of a 45-minute transfer via helicopter, it’s a 3½ hour drive along mountain and river roads,” said Dr. Lima.

Ultimately, Dr. McKenney wished colleagues better understood the challenges facing rural physicians.

“When I transfer a patient from my hospital to a bigger facility, it’s because I don’t have certain medications on hand or an MRI ready to go,” she said. “It’s not that I don’t know what I’m doing.”

In addition, when she calls for a consult or sends a patient to a larger facility, it’s always because of a lack of resources.

“As rural physicians, we are really well educated and well trained,” she said “Our issue is that we’re practicing in a place with fewer things. But, when we call upon you, just know that we’ve tried everything we can first.”

Dr. McKenney lives and works happily in the town she grew up in and said no place could have given her a warmer welcome. In fact, while she was still finishing school, the townspeople campaigned to get her to come back and practice there – hard to come by that in a big city.

Small-town physicians offered five tactics for making a small-town practice work successfully:

• Develop relationships with specialists in your nearest large facility for referrals.
• Consider joining an ACO to improve work flow, diversify revenue streams, and maintain independence.
• Create a culture that’s welcoming to all incoming young professionals.
• Host medical students and residents as part of their education. “If they learn about your community, your practice, and rural healthcare early on, they will be more likely to be interested in coming back to serve that same community,” said Dr. McKenney.
• Recruit more than one physician if possible. “It’s really scary for new physicians to go out and practice on their own right out of training. Most rural communities need more than one more doctor anyway, and this gives them a built-in support system from the beginning,” said Dr. McKenney.

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

Key takeaways

• Small-town physicians mostly love their practices; they are close to their patients and community, have the opportunity to practice very varied medicine, and feel like they make a difference. But they also struggle with many issues.
• Small practices are at a disadvantage when it comes to negotiating reimbursements.
• Resources such as access to specialists, equipment, and specialty meds put small-town docs in more precarious situations.

The challenges are mounting for physicians in small-town practices and rural areas, with private equity buying up many practices, the cost of overhead rising, and increased stress in attracting top talent. In the first of a two-part series, this news organization spoke to physicians in small towns around the country to identify some of the pain points squeezing small-town practices’ profits and making patient care more difficult.

Here are how physicians are working to offset the challenges and to make their small-town practices more rewarding.
 

Low reimbursements remain challenging

Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, owner of Fredonia Family Care, a private family medicine practice in Fredonia, Kan. (population 2,132), loves having close relationships with her patients and being an integral part of the community. However, she said that owning the only clinic in her town, which is 90 miles from Wichita, limits her power when negotiating for reimbursements.

“We don’t have bargaining power, so we often will end up getting terribly low reimbursements, especially for Medicaid,” she said. “We pay the price for not being part of a big health system.”

To bolster her ability to get reimbursement price concessions, her practice – which was initially started by her father and now includes four physicians – joined an accountable care organization in 2016.

“By joining other private practices around the state, we made some gains,” said Dr. McKenney, who was born in the hospital where she now works. “It enabled us to sit at the table with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas, for example, and have conversations that they listen to.”
 

Talent recruitment is an ongoing issue

For Ann Lima, MD, a family physician who came to Orofino, Idaho (population 3,000), 8 years ago after her residency in Ventura, Calif., practicing small-town medicine and seeing patients with a myriad of medical issues is a fulfilling challenge, but finding trained providers to join her practice remains problematic.

That’s because the physicians in her practice need to be nimble and to be able to routinely pivot from primary care to obstetrics to emergency medicine, owing to the nature of small-town practicing.

“It’s challenging in terms of finding people who are able to stay on top of all facets of hospital and acute care emergency care as well as OB and primary care,” she said. She noted that, for patients who require additional care, the nearest cities are Spokane, Wash., and Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, both approximately 3 hours away.

“It’s a challenge to find well-trained family physicians who want to do this diverse type of medicine.”

When it comes to staffing at her clinic, Dr. McKenney said it’s been more efficient to train employees from the ground up than try to find health care workers who already have significant experience.

“Right now, I have two 19-year-olds, a 21-year-old, and a 24-year-old working for me,” Dr. McKenney said of her clinic staff, which currently includes four doctors, a nurse practitioner, and 14 employees. “I hired the 19-year-old at age 17 and taught her to be a medical assistant.”

In addition to difficulty in recruiting physicians, nurses, and staff to a small-town practice, trying to find affordable housing makes it difficult to attract staffing in certain locations, said Frank Batcha, MD, a family physician in Hailey, Idaho (population 9,463), and chief of staff at St. Luke’s Wood River Regional Hospital in Ketchum, Idaho, where he has worked since the 1990s.

“We’re a resort community, so housing is unaffordable for somebody with an entry-level job,” he said. The region, a valley that includes Sun Valley, a popular ski resort with about 22,000 residents, is home to a handful of celebrities. It’s a popular destination spot and makes for a beautiful back country to call home.

“But it’s difficult to recruit physicians out of residency for this reason,” said Dr. Batcha. “We call it the scenery tax. It comes with a price.” Idaho is 49th out of 50th in physicians per capita for the entire United States.
 

Resources can be scarce

Another stressor for rural and small-town physicians is access to specialists, resources, and, in some cases, vital equipment.

“We have a general surgeon but no other specialty care,” Dr. Lima said. “This means that we can do acute appendicitis, we can take out gall bladders and do hernia repairs locally, but for significant trauma care and for patients who are very sick with ICU needs, we have to transfer them.”

Weather is also a huge factor that can affect ground ambulance or helicopter travel to a larger hospital.

“If there’s a storm, instead of a 45-minute transfer via helicopter, it’s a 3½ hour drive along mountain and river roads,” said Dr. Lima.

Ultimately, Dr. McKenney wished colleagues better understood the challenges facing rural physicians.

“When I transfer a patient from my hospital to a bigger facility, it’s because I don’t have certain medications on hand or an MRI ready to go,” she said. “It’s not that I don’t know what I’m doing.”

In addition, when she calls for a consult or sends a patient to a larger facility, it’s always because of a lack of resources.

“As rural physicians, we are really well educated and well trained,” she said “Our issue is that we’re practicing in a place with fewer things. But, when we call upon you, just know that we’ve tried everything we can first.”

Dr. McKenney lives and works happily in the town she grew up in and said no place could have given her a warmer welcome. In fact, while she was still finishing school, the townspeople campaigned to get her to come back and practice there – hard to come by that in a big city.

Small-town physicians offered five tactics for making a small-town practice work successfully:

• Develop relationships with specialists in your nearest large facility for referrals.
• Consider joining an ACO to improve work flow, diversify revenue streams, and maintain independence.
• Create a culture that’s welcoming to all incoming young professionals.
• Host medical students and residents as part of their education. “If they learn about your community, your practice, and rural healthcare early on, they will be more likely to be interested in coming back to serve that same community,” said Dr. McKenney.
• Recruit more than one physician if possible. “It’s really scary for new physicians to go out and practice on their own right out of training. Most rural communities need more than one more doctor anyway, and this gives them a built-in support system from the beginning,” said Dr. McKenney.

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

As we all face remarkable challenges in giving great care to our patients and maintaining great care for ourselves, I wanted to share a few thoughts I have had regarding difficult things I have seen in the past few months.

• Call centers: Yikes! I think this is an overlooked stress on the primary care system. In a cost-cutting effort, organizations have gone to call centers to handle incoming calls, and hold times can be enormous. My own organization often has wait times longer than 30 minutes. I recently called another organization and had a wait time more than 30 minutes. Patients become frustrated and will message their primary care team to intervene for scheduling issues then will arrive at their appointments frustrated by all the hassles.
• Difficult encounters: We all have visits that we know will be challenging. I think it is even more difficult when we enter the visit stressed and tired. I have always found that, when I am in a calm place, even the most difficult visits go much better. Our patients arrive at clinic visits more stressed and tired too, as they face the challenge of a stretched and overwhelmed primary care system.
• Limited availability of specialists: My organization has had a sharp increase in wait times for specialty care over the past few years. Waits for some specialties can be almost a year. A study by Reddy and colleagues found a wait time of 3 months for patients referred to gastroenterologists.¹ The lack of timely access to specialists adds to the stress and burden of primary care professionals. Managing problems deemed in need of subspecialty care as patients wait for appointments is difficult.
• Patient portals: Some practices are starting to figure this out this problem, others aren’t. Budd reviewed all the factors with the EHR that contribute to physician burnout.² Portals have added another source of patient care outside face-to-face visits that adds to physician work load; for many practices is not appropriately accounted for in effort or productivity measures. Some practices are now starting to charge for patient messaging, but this may require even more physician time in documentation and billing. Unless this directly helps the physician reduce work hours or improve compensation, then it may make the problem worse.

There is little mystery why it seems so hard ... it is! Many things have been added to the plate of primary care professionals (increased messaging, calming patients frustrated with the medical system, and increased need for bridging care while patients wait for specialty appointments). Our patients need us now more than ever to give excellent, compassionate care in a poorly functioning system. We need to be emotionally and physically healthy enough to be there for our patients. Prioritize your own needs.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Reddy K et al. Health Equity. 2018 Jun 1;2(1):103-8.

2. Budd J. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023 Apr 19.

As we all face remarkable challenges in giving great care to our patients and maintaining great care for ourselves, I wanted to share a few thoughts I have had regarding difficult things I have seen in the past few months.

• Call centers: Yikes! I think this is an overlooked stress on the primary care system. In a cost-cutting effort, organizations have gone to call centers to handle incoming calls, and hold times can be enormous. My own organization often has wait times longer than 30 minutes. I recently called another organization and had a wait time more than 30 minutes. Patients become frustrated and will message their primary care team to intervene for scheduling issues then will arrive at their appointments frustrated by all the hassles.
• Difficult encounters: We all have visits that we know will be challenging. I think it is even more difficult when we enter the visit stressed and tired. I have always found that, when I am in a calm place, even the most difficult visits go much better. Our patients arrive at clinic visits more stressed and tired too, as they face the challenge of a stretched and overwhelmed primary care system.
• Limited availability of specialists: My organization has had a sharp increase in wait times for specialty care over the past few years. Waits for some specialties can be almost a year. A study by Reddy and colleagues found a wait time of 3 months for patients referred to gastroenterologists.¹ The lack of timely access to specialists adds to the stress and burden of primary care professionals. Managing problems deemed in need of subspecialty care as patients wait for appointments is difficult.
• Patient portals: Some practices are starting to figure this out this problem, others aren’t. Budd reviewed all the factors with the EHR that contribute to physician burnout.² Portals have added another source of patient care outside face-to-face visits that adds to physician work load; for many practices is not appropriately accounted for in effort or productivity measures. Some practices are now starting to charge for patient messaging, but this may require even more physician time in documentation and billing. Unless this directly helps the physician reduce work hours or improve compensation, then it may make the problem worse.

There is little mystery why it seems so hard ... it is! Many things have been added to the plate of primary care professionals (increased messaging, calming patients frustrated with the medical system, and increased need for bridging care while patients wait for specialty appointments). Our patients need us now more than ever to give excellent, compassionate care in a poorly functioning system. We need to be emotionally and physically healthy enough to be there for our patients. Prioritize your own needs.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Reddy K et al. Health Equity. 2018 Jun 1;2(1):103-8.

2. Budd J. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023 Apr 19.

As we all face remarkable challenges in giving great care to our patients and maintaining great care for ourselves, I wanted to share a few thoughts I have had regarding difficult things I have seen in the past few months.

• Call centers: Yikes! I think this is an overlooked stress on the primary care system. In a cost-cutting effort, organizations have gone to call centers to handle incoming calls, and hold times can be enormous. My own organization often has wait times longer than 30 minutes. I recently called another organization and had a wait time more than 30 minutes. Patients become frustrated and will message their primary care team to intervene for scheduling issues then will arrive at their appointments frustrated by all the hassles.
• Difficult encounters: We all have visits that we know will be challenging. I think it is even more difficult when we enter the visit stressed and tired. I have always found that, when I am in a calm place, even the most difficult visits go much better. Our patients arrive at clinic visits more stressed and tired too, as they face the challenge of a stretched and overwhelmed primary care system.
• Limited availability of specialists: My organization has had a sharp increase in wait times for specialty care over the past few years. Waits for some specialties can be almost a year. A study by Reddy and colleagues found a wait time of 3 months for patients referred to gastroenterologists.¹ The lack of timely access to specialists adds to the stress and burden of primary care professionals. Managing problems deemed in need of subspecialty care as patients wait for appointments is difficult.
• Patient portals: Some practices are starting to figure this out this problem, others aren’t. Budd reviewed all the factors with the EHR that contribute to physician burnout.² Portals have added another source of patient care outside face-to-face visits that adds to physician work load; for many practices is not appropriately accounted for in effort or productivity measures. Some practices are now starting to charge for patient messaging, but this may require even more physician time in documentation and billing. Unless this directly helps the physician reduce work hours or improve compensation, then it may make the problem worse.

There is little mystery why it seems so hard ... it is! Many things have been added to the plate of primary care professionals (increased messaging, calming patients frustrated with the medical system, and increased need for bridging care while patients wait for specialty appointments). Our patients need us now more than ever to give excellent, compassionate care in a poorly functioning system. We need to be emotionally and physically healthy enough to be there for our patients. Prioritize your own needs.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Reddy K et al. Health Equity. 2018 Jun 1;2(1):103-8.

2. Budd J. J Prim Care Community Health. 2023 Apr 19.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.

“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”

Biologics versus biosimilars

In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”

Systematic review

Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.

Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.

The researchers found the following:

At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.

In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.

At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.

At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).

Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.

Experts weigh in

Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.

However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.

“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”

Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.

“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.

Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.

“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”

Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.

Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.

The World Health Organization is set to list the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen.

The move, reported by multiple media sources, is expected during a July 14 meeting of WHO research experts – the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Reuters cited two unnamed sources “with knowledge of the process,” noting that aspartame is one of the world’s most commonly used sweeteners. 

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1974 for use as a tabletop sweetener and in chewing gum and cold breakfast cereals, as well as instant coffee, gelatins, puddings and fillings, and dairy products. Up to 95% of carbonated soft drinks that have a sweetener use aspartame, and the substance is often added by consumers to beverages (it’s the blue packet of sweetener in the array of packets that appear on diner and restaurant tables),  The Washington Post  reported. 

The WHO currently lists 126 agents as known to be carcinogenic to humans, ranging from alcohol and tobacco to outdoor air pollution. The WHO also lists 94 agents as “probably” carcinogenic to humans and 322 agents as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans. Aspartame would join the “possibly” group, which includes gasoline engine exhaust and working as a dry cleaner.

Earlier this year, the WHO warned that people should not use nonsugar sweeteners to control their weight because of potential health risks. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The World Health Organization is set to list the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen.

The move, reported by multiple media sources, is expected during a July 14 meeting of WHO research experts – the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Reuters cited two unnamed sources “with knowledge of the process,” noting that aspartame is one of the world’s most commonly used sweeteners. 

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1974 for use as a tabletop sweetener and in chewing gum and cold breakfast cereals, as well as instant coffee, gelatins, puddings and fillings, and dairy products. Up to 95% of carbonated soft drinks that have a sweetener use aspartame, and the substance is often added by consumers to beverages (it’s the blue packet of sweetener in the array of packets that appear on diner and restaurant tables),  The Washington Post  reported. 

The WHO currently lists 126 agents as known to be carcinogenic to humans, ranging from alcohol and tobacco to outdoor air pollution. The WHO also lists 94 agents as “probably” carcinogenic to humans and 322 agents as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans. Aspartame would join the “possibly” group, which includes gasoline engine exhaust and working as a dry cleaner.

Earlier this year, the WHO warned that people should not use nonsugar sweeteners to control their weight because of potential health risks. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The World Health Organization is set to list the artificial sweetener aspartame as a possible carcinogen.

The move, reported by multiple media sources, is expected during a July 14 meeting of WHO research experts – the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Reuters cited two unnamed sources “with knowledge of the process,” noting that aspartame is one of the world’s most commonly used sweeteners. 

Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar and was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1974 for use as a tabletop sweetener and in chewing gum and cold breakfast cereals, as well as instant coffee, gelatins, puddings and fillings, and dairy products. Up to 95% of carbonated soft drinks that have a sweetener use aspartame, and the substance is often added by consumers to beverages (it’s the blue packet of sweetener in the array of packets that appear on diner and restaurant tables),  The Washington Post  reported. 

The WHO currently lists 126 agents as known to be carcinogenic to humans, ranging from alcohol and tobacco to outdoor air pollution. The WHO also lists 94 agents as “probably” carcinogenic to humans and 322 agents as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans. Aspartame would join the “possibly” group, which includes gasoline engine exhaust and working as a dry cleaner.

Earlier this year, the WHO warned that people should not use nonsugar sweeteners to control their weight because of potential health risks. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.