Practice Management

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few years, many states have attempted to address the ongoing shortage of healthcare workers by introducing new bills to increase the scope of practice for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). The goal of each bill was to improve access to care, particularly for patients who may live in areas where it’s difficult to find a doctor.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) launched a targeted campaign to fight “scope creep.” Their goal was to gain the momentum necessary to block proposed legislation to modify or expand the practice authority of nonphysicians, including PAs. A spokesperson for the organization told this news organization that the AMA “greatly values and respects the contributions of PAs as important members of the healthcare team” but emphasized that they do not have the same “skill set or breadth of experience of physicians.”

As such, the AMA argued that expanded practice authority would not only dismantle physician-led care teams but also ultimately lead to higher costs and lower-quality patient care.

The AMA has since launched a large-scale advocacy effort to fight practice expansion legislation — and has a specific page on its website to highlight those efforts. In addition, they have authored model legislation, talking points for AMA members, and a widely read article in AMA News to help them in what they call a “fight for physicians.”

These resources have also been disseminated to the greater healthcare stakeholder community.

Marilyn Suri, PA-C, chief operating officer and senior executive for Advanced Practice Professional Affairs at Vincenzo Novara MDPA and Associates, a critical care pulmonary medicine practice in Miami, Florida, said she found the AMA’s campaign to be “very misleading.”

“PAs are created in the image of physicians to help manage the physician shortage. We are trained very rigorously — to diagnose illness, develop treatment plans, and prescribe medications,” she said. “We’re not trying to expand our scope. We are trying to eliminate or lessen barriers that prevent patients from getting access to care.”

Suri is not alone. Last summer, the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) requested a meeting with the AMA to find ways for the two organizations to collaborate to improve care delivery — as well as find common ground to address issues regarding patient access to care. When the AMA did not respond, the AAPA sent a second letter in September 2024, reiterating their request for a meeting.

That correspondence also included a letter, signed by more than 8000 PAs from across the country, calling for an end to what the AAPA refers to as “damaging rhetoric,” as well as data from a recent survey of PAs regarding the fallout of AMA’s scope creep messaging.

Those survey results highlighted that the vast majority of PAs surveyed feel that the AMA is doing more than just attacking proposed legislation: They believe the association is negatively influencing patients’ understanding of PA qualifications, ultimately affecting their ability to provide care.

“The campaign is unintentionally harming patients by suggesting we are doing more than what we are trained to do,” said Elisa Hock, PA-C, a behavioral health PA in Texas. “And when you work in a place with limited resources, medically speaking — including limited access to providers — this kind of campaign is really detrimental to helping patients.”

Lisa M. Gables, CEO of the AAPA, said the organization is “deeply disappointed” in the AMA’s lack of response to their letters thus far — but remains committed to working with the organization to bring forward new solutions to address healthcare’s most pressing challenges.

“AAPA remains committed to pushing for modernization of practice laws to ensure all providers can practice medicine to the fullest extent of their training, education, and experience,” she said. “That is what patients deserve and want.”

Hock agreed. She told this news organization that the public is not always aware of what PAs can offer in terms of patient care. That said, she believes newer generations of physicians understand the value of PAs and the many skills they bring to the table.

“I’ve been doing this for 17 years, and it’s been an uphill battle, at times, to educate the public about what PAs can and can’t do,” she explained. “To throw more mud in the mix that will confuse patients more about what we do doesn’t help. Healthcare works best with a team-based approach. And that team has been and always will be led by the physician. We are aware of our role and our limitations. But we also know what we can offer patients, especially in areas like El Paso, where there is a real shortage of providers.”

With a growing aging population — and the physician shortage expected to increase in the coming decade — Suri hopes that the AMA will accept AAPA’s invitation to meet — because no one wins with this kind of healthcare infighting. In fact, she said patients will suffer because of it. She hopes that future discussions and collaborations can show providers and patients what team-based healthcare can offer.

“I think it’s important for those in healthcare to be aware that none of us work alone. Even physicians collaborate with other subspecialties, as well as nurses and other healthcare professionals,” said Suri. “[Physicians and PAs] need to take a collaborative approach. We need each other. PAs are not physicians. But, just like physicians, we are considered safe and trusted care providers because of our education and training. And we can increase access to care for patients tomorrow if we start working together.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies offer the tantalizing prospect of dramatically altering the outcome of lung cancers, but there are many hurdles to treating patients with them, according to experts.

These hurdles include finding the right targets, minimizing the risks of the treatment, and reducing the enormous burdens getting these therapies places on patients.

“Precision immunotherapy,” or unleashing the immune system in a highly specific manner, “is obviously, in a way, a holy grail” in lung cancer, said Martin Forster, MD, PhD, who cochaired a session on the topic at the World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2024.

He underlined, however, that “immunology is very complex, as is cancer biology,” and consequently, there are different avenues being explored, including CAR T-cell therapies, T-cell receptor therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, among others.

Antibody technology is also being harnessed to target chemotherapy, via antibody-drug conjugates, noted Forster, who is clinical lead of the early phase clinical trials programme at University College London in England.

Moreover, investigators are looking at combining various therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors with T cell–engaging approaches.

He highlighted, however, that the ideal target for these approaches is something that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign, but is found within the cancer, “and you also want it ideally to be in all of the cancer cells.”

A good example is a clonal change, meaning an early evolutionary genetic alteration in the tumor that is present in all the cells, Forster said.
 

Identifying the Right Target

“One of the big challenges in all forms of targeted immunotherapy is around selecting the target and developing the right product for the right target,” Forster emphasized.

“This concept works really well in hematological malignancies” but is “proving to be more challenging to deliver within solid malignancies,” he added.

“The reason why so many lung tumors are resistant to immunotherapy is because they ‘re immunologically cold,” Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Oncology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

“There are no T cells in the tumor,” he explained, so it “doesn’t really matter how much you block checkpoint inhibitors, you still have to have a T cell in there in order to have effect.”

To overcome this problem CAR T-cell therapies are engineered to target a tumor, Herbst continued, but that “is a little hard in lung cancer because you need to have a unique antigen that’s on a lung tumor that’s not present on normal cells.”

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, agreed, saying that there is “a lot of excitement with CAR T-cell therapies, and the promise of cure,” but “the biology is not as simple as we think.”

“For example, it’s not as simple as CD20 or CD19 targeting,” she said in an interview. “Most of the antigens that are being targeted in the solid tumor world, unfortunately, are also expressed on normal tissue. So there is always this potential for toxicity.”
 

A Question of Time

Another aspect of CAR T-cell therapy that is proving difficult is its delivery.

Forster outlined that the process involves first leukapheresis, in which T cells are obtained from a blood draw. These are then genetically modified to express chimeric antigen receptors before being multiplied in the laboratory and introduced to the patient.

This process can take several weeks, during which patients may require bridging treatment, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, to keep their cancer under control. “Sometimes, patients with solid tumors who are in later lines of therapy may not have the luxury of time to be able to wait for all of these steps,” Aggarwal said.

There is also the question of whether a bespoke treatment can be scaled up so that it can be delivered to more patients in a more timely manner.

“There are certainly lessons to be learned from use of off-the-shelf CAR T-cell products” in hematologic malignancies, she noted, “but we’re just not there yet in lung cancer.”
 

Life-Threatening Toxicities

To improve the chances of engraftment when the CAR T cells are introduced, patients will require prior lymphodepletion with chemotherapy.

This, Forster said, is a “relatively intensive part of treatment.” However, “if you just give immune cells to somebody, when the host body is already full of immune cells,” the CAR T cells are unlikely to engraft, and “so you need to create space for those cells to develop.”

“What you want is not an immediate effect” but rather an immune “memory” that will give an ongoing benefit, he underscored.

Many patients will need to stay in the hospital one or more nights “because when you bring T cells to a tumor, you get cytokine release syndrome [CRS],” Herbst said. This can cause hypotension, fever, and chills, similar to a viral response.

“So patients can get sick,” which in turn requires treatment and follow-up. That puts a “big burden on the health system” and is a major issue, Herbst said.

Patients are also at a risk for “significant neurotoxicity,” said session cochair Amy Moore, PhD, vice president of Global Engagement and Patient Partnerships, LUNGevity Foundation, Chicago. This, alongside CRS, “can be life threatening for our patients.”

Lengthy hospital stays also have a psychosocial impact on the patient and their quality of life, she emphasized, especially when they are treated in a center far away from family and loved ones.

“We’ve also heard anecdotally some reports recently of secondary malignancies” with CAR T cell and other therapies, and that’s something that needs to be monitored as more patients go on these treatments, she said.
 

‘At What Cost’ to Patients?

The difficulties faced by patients in receiving CAR T-cell therapy go far beyond the practicalities of generating the cells or the risks associated with lymphodepletion, however.

“These therapies are extraordinarily expensive,” although that has to be weighed against the cost of years of ongoing treatment with immunotherapy, Moore said.

Moreover, as CAR T-cell therapies are a “last resort” option, patients have to “exhaust all other treatments” before being eligible, she continued. There’s significant prior authorization challenges, which means patients “have to go through many hurdles before they can qualify for treatment with these therapies.”

This typically involves having numerous laboratory tests, which can add up to out-of-pocket expenses for patients often reaching tens of thousands of dollars, Moore said.

Another issue is that they must be administered in certified treatment centers, and there are a limited number of those in the United States, she added.

This increases the risk of heightening disparities, as patients are “forced to travel, seek lodging, and have meal expenses,” and the costs “are not trivial,” Moore underlined. “It can rack up quickly and mount to $10,000 or more.”

For physicians, there are difficulties in terms of the logistics of following up with those patients who need to be treated at centers on the other side of the country, uncertainties around reimbursement, and restrictions in terms of staff time and resources, among others.

“I’m as excited as you are at the science,” but it is the implementation that is at issue, Moore said. In other words, there is the offer of a cure with CAR T-cell therapy, but “at what cost?”

“For patients, these considerations are real and they’re significant” and “we have to ensure that what we’re doing is in service of people with cancer,” she emphasized.

No funding was declared. Aggarwal declared relationships with Genentech, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Turning Point, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, Regeneron/Sanofi, Eisai, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Genetics, and Shionogi. Forster declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Achilles, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EQRx, GSK, Immutep, Janssen, Merck, Oxford Vacmedix, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Syncorp, Transgene, and Ultrahuman. Moore declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.

The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.

The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
 

Flawed Reviews

A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.

As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”

Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.

“There is indeed a problem with research reliability, but it’s not as widespread or severe as some portray,” said Daniele Fanelli, a metascientist at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
 

Lack of Awareness

A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.

While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”

Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.

A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.

The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
 

Fanelli’s Perspective

Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.

“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.

The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.

The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
 

Flawed Reviews

A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.

As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”

Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.

“There is indeed a problem with research reliability, but it’s not as widespread or severe as some portray,” said Daniele Fanelli, a metascientist at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
 

Lack of Awareness

A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.

While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”

Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.

A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.

The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
 

Fanelli’s Perspective

Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.

“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The peer-review process, which is used by scientific journals to validate legitimate research, is now under legal scrutiny. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York will soon rule on whether scientific publishers have compromised this system for profit. In mid-September, University of California, Los Angeles neuroscientist Lucina Uddin filed a class action lawsuit against six leading academic publishers — Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature — accusing them of violating antitrust laws and obstructing academic research.

The lawsuit targets several long-standing practices in scientific publishing, including the lack of compensation for peer reviewers, restrictions that require submitting to only one journal at a time, and bans on sharing manuscripts under review. Uddin’s complaint argues that these practices contribute to inefficiencies in the review process, thus delaying the publication of critical discoveries, which could hinder research, clinical advancements, and the development of new medical treatments.

The suit also noted that these publishers generated $10 billion in revenue in 2023 in peer-reviewed journals. However, the complaint seemingly overlooks the widespread practice of preprint repositories, where many manuscripts are shared while awaiting peer review.
 

Flawed Reviews

A growing number of studies have highlighted subpar or unethical behaviors among reviewers, who are supposed to adhere to the highest standards of methodological rigor, both in conducting research and reviewing work for journals. One recent study published in Scientometrics in August examined 263 reviews from 37 journals across various disciplines and found alarming patterns of duplication. Many of the reviews contained identical or highly similar language. Some reviewers were found to be suggesting that the authors expand their bibliographies to include the reviewers’ own work, thus inflating their citation counts.

As María Ángeles Oviedo-García from the University of Seville in Spain, pointed out: “The analysis of 263 review reports shows a pattern of vague, repetitive statements — often identical or very similar — along with coercive citations, ultimately resulting in misleading reviews.”

Experts in research integrity and ethics argue that while issues persist, the integrity of scientific research is improving. Increasing research and public disclosure reflect a heightened awareness of problems long overlooked.

“There is indeed a problem with research reliability, but it’s not as widespread or severe as some portray,” said Daniele Fanelli, a metascientist at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. Speaking to this news organization, Fanelli, who has been studying scientific misconduct for about 20 years, noted that while his early work left him disillusioned, further research has replaced his cynicism with what he describes as healthy skepticism and a more optimistic outlook. Fanelli also collaborates with the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Research Ethics and Bioethics at the Italian National Research Council (CNR), where he helped develop the first research integrity guidelines.
 

Lack of Awareness

A recurring challenge is the difficulty in distinguishing between honest mistakes and intentional misconduct. “This is why greater investment in education is essential,” said Daniel Pizzolato, European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany, and the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven in Belgium.

While Pizzolato acknowledged that institutions such as the CNR in Italy provide a positive example, awareness of research integrity is generally still lacking across much of Europe, and there are few offices dedicated to promoting research integrity. However, he pointed to promising developments in other countries. “In France and Denmark, researchers are required to be familiar with integrity norms because codes of conduct have legal standing. Some major international funding bodies like the European Molecular Biology Organization are making participation in research integrity courses a condition for receiving grants.”

Pizzolato remains optimistic. “There is a growing willingness to move past this impasse,” he said.

A recent study published in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology reveals troubling gaps in how retracted biomedical articles are flagged and cited. Led by Caitlin Bakkera, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, the research sought to determine whether articles retracted because of errors or fraud were properly flagged across various databases.

The results were concerning: Less than 5% of retracted articles had consistent retraction notices across all databases that hosted them, and less than 50% of citations referenced the retraction. None of the 414 retraction notices analyzed met best-practice guidelines for completeness. Bakkera and colleagues warned that these shortcomings threaten the integrity of public health research.
 

Fanelli’s Perspective

Despite the concerns, Fanelli remains calm. “Science is based on debate and a perspective called organized skepticism, which helps reveal the truth,” he explained. “While there is often excessive skepticism today, the overall quality of clinical trials is improving.

“It’s important to remember that reliable results take time and shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a single study. It’s essential to consider the broader context, the history of the research field, and potential conflicts of interest, both financial and otherwise. Biomedical research requires constant updates,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Summary:

In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
 

Key Takeaways:

AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.

The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.

The ability to analyze global biomedical knowledge in 24 hours is unprecedented, reducing research costs and increasing the speed of drug discovery.
 

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals

From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024

AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise

To see the full event recording, click here.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Summary:

In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
 

Key Takeaways:

AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.

The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.

The ability to analyze global biomedical knowledge in 24 hours is unprecedented, reducing research costs and increasing the speed of drug discovery.
 

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals

From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024

AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise

To see the full event recording, click here.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Summary:

In this segment, the speaker discusses how AI is revolutionizing the drug repurposing process. Previously, drug repurposing was limited by manual research on individual diseases and drugs. With AI, scientists can now analyze a vast array of drugs and diseases simultaneously, generating a ranking system based on the likelihood of success. The Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment and Laboratory, along with the platform Every Cure, uses AI to score 3000 drugs against 18,000 diseases. This platform dramatically reduces the time and resources required for drug repurposing, enabling predictions that can be tested in a fraction of the time.
 

Key Takeaways:

AI is accelerating the drug repurposing process, offering faster and more comprehensive analysis of possible drug-disease matches.

The AI-based platform assigns a likelihood score to each potential match, streamlining the process for testing and validation.

The ability to analyze global biomedical knowledge in 24 hours is unprecedented, reducing research costs and increasing the speed of drug discovery.
 

Our Editors Also Recommend: 

AI’s Drug Revolution, Part 1: Faster Trials and Approvals

From AI to Obesity Drugs to Soaring Costs: Medscape Hot Topics in the Medical Profession Report 2024

AI Voice Analysis for Diabetes Screening Shows Promise

To see the full event recording, click here.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the 350 residents finalized their union contract at the University of Vermont (UVM) Medical Center, Burlington, in 2022, Jesse Mostoller, DO, now a third-year pathology resident, recalls hearing about another resident at the hospital who resorted to moonlighting as an Uber driver to make ends meet.

“In Vermont, rent and childcare are expensive,” said Dr. Mostoller, adding that, thanks to union bargaining, first-year residents at UVM are now paid $71,000 per year instead of $61,000. In addition, residents now receive $1800 per year for food (up from $200-$300 annually) and a $1800 annual fund to help pay for board exams that can be carried over for 2 years. “When we were negotiating, the biggest item on our list of demands was to help alleviate the financial pressure residents have been facing for years.”

The UVM residents’ collective bargaining also includes a cap on working hours so that residents don’t work 80 hours a week, paid parental leave, affordable housing, and funds for education and wellness.

These are some of the most common challenges that are faced by residents all over the country, said A. Taylor Walker, MD, MPH, family medicine chief physician at Tufts University School of Medicine/Cambridge Health Alliance in Boston, Massachusetts, and national president of the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), which is part of the Service Employees International Union.

For these reasons, residents at Montefiore Medical Center, Stanford Health Care, George Washington University, and the University of Pennsylvania have recently voted to unionize, according to Dr. Walker.

And while there are several small local unions that have picked up residents at local hospitals, CIR is the largest union of physicians in the United States, with a total of 33,000 residents and fellows across the country (15% of the staff at more than 60 hospitals nationwide).

“We’ve doubled in size in the last 4 years,” said Dr. Walker. “The reason is that we’re in a national reckoning on the corporatization of American medicine and the way in which graduate medical education is rooted in a cycle of exploitation that doesn’t center on the health, well-being, or safety of our doctors and ultimately negatively affects our patients.”

Here’s what residents are fighting for — right now.
 

Adequate Parental Leave

Christopher Domanski, MD, a first-year resident in psychiatry at California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) in San Francisco, is also a new dad to a 5-month-old son and is currently in the sixth week of parental leave. One goal of CPMC’s union, started a year and a half ago, is to expand parental leave to 8 weeks.

“I started as a resident here in mid-June, but the fight with CPMC leaders has been going on for a year and a half,” Dr. Domanski said. “It can feel very frustrating because many times there’s no budge in the conversations we want to have.”

Contract negotiations here continue to be slow — and arduous.

“It goes back and forth,” said Dr. Domanski, who makes about $75,000 a year. “Sometimes they listen to our proposals, but they deny the vast majority or make a paltry increase in salary or time off. It goes like this: We’ll have a negotiation; we’ll talk about it, and then they say, ‘we’re not comfortable doing this’ and it stalls again.”

If a resident hasn’t started a family yet, access to fertility benefits and reproductive healthcare is paramount because most residents are in their 20s and 30s, Dr. Walker said.

“Our reproductive futures are really hindered by what care we have access to and what care is covered,” she added. “We don’t make enough money to pay for reproductive care out of pocket.”
 

Fair Pay

In Boston, the residents at Mass General Brigham certified their union in June 2023, but they still don’t have a contract.

“When I applied for a residency in September 2023, I spoke to the folks here, and I was basically under the impression that we would have a contract by the time I matched,” said Madison Masters, MD, a resident in internal medicine. “We are not there.”

This timeline isn’t unusual — the 1400 Penn Medicine residents who unionized in 2023 only recently secured a tentative union contract at the end of September, and at Stanford, the process to ratify their first contract took 13 months.

Still, the salary issue remains frustrating as resident compensation doesn’t line up with the cost of living or the amount of work residents do, said Dr. Masters, who says starting salaries at Mass General Brigham are $78,500 plus a $10,000 stipend for housing.

“There’s been a long tradition of underpaying residents — we’re treated like trainees, but we’re also a primary labor force,” Dr. Masters said, adding that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are paid almost twice as much as residents — some make $120,000 per year or more, while the salary range for residents nationwide is $49,000-$65,000 per year.

“Every time we discuss the contract and talk about a financial package, they offer a 1.5% raise for the next 3 years while we had asked for closer to 8%,” Dr. Masters said. “Then, when they come back for the next bargaining session, they go up a quarter of a percent each time. Recently, they said we will need to go to a mediator to try and resolve this.”
 

Adequate Healthcare

The biggest — and perhaps the most shocking — ask is for robust health insurance coverage.

“At my hospital, they’re telling us to get Amazon One Medical for health insurance,” Dr. Masters said. “They’re saying it’s hard for anyone to get primary care coverage here.”

Inadequate health insurance is a big issue, as burnout among residents and fellows remains a problem. At UVM, a $10,000 annual wellness stipend has helped address some of these issues. Even so, union members at UVM are planning to return to the table within 18 months to continue their collective bargaining.

The ability to access mental health services anywhere you want is also critical for residents, Dr. Walker said.

“If you can only go to a therapist at your own institution, there is a hesitation to utilize that specialist if that’s even offered,” Dr. Walker said. “Do you want to go to therapy with a colleague? Probably not.”

Ultimately, the residents we spoke to are committed to fighting for their workplace rights — no matter how time-consuming or difficult this has been.

“No administration wants us to have to have a union, but it’s necessary,” Dr. Mostoller said. “As an individual, you don’t have leverage to get a seat at the table, but now we have a seat at the table. We have a wonderful contract, but we’re going to keep fighting to make it even better.”

Paving the way for future residents is a key motivator, too.

“There’s this idea of leaving the campsite cleaner than you found it,” Dr. Mostoller told this news organization. “It’s the same thing here — we’re trying to fix this so that the next generation of residents won’t have to.”

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

Before the 350 residents finalized their union contract at the University of Vermont (UVM) Medical Center, Burlington, in 2022, Jesse Mostoller, DO, now a third-year pathology resident, recalls hearing about another resident at the hospital who resorted to moonlighting as an Uber driver to make ends meet.

“In Vermont, rent and childcare are expensive,” said Dr. Mostoller, adding that, thanks to union bargaining, first-year residents at UVM are now paid $71,000 per year instead of $61,000. In addition, residents now receive $1800 per year for food (up from $200-$300 annually) and a $1800 annual fund to help pay for board exams that can be carried over for 2 years. “When we were negotiating, the biggest item on our list of demands was to help alleviate the financial pressure residents have been facing for years.”

The UVM residents’ collective bargaining also includes a cap on working hours so that residents don’t work 80 hours a week, paid parental leave, affordable housing, and funds for education and wellness.

These are some of the most common challenges that are faced by residents all over the country, said A. Taylor Walker, MD, MPH, family medicine chief physician at Tufts University School of Medicine/Cambridge Health Alliance in Boston, Massachusetts, and national president of the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), which is part of the Service Employees International Union.

For these reasons, residents at Montefiore Medical Center, Stanford Health Care, George Washington University, and the University of Pennsylvania have recently voted to unionize, according to Dr. Walker.

And while there are several small local unions that have picked up residents at local hospitals, CIR is the largest union of physicians in the United States, with a total of 33,000 residents and fellows across the country (15% of the staff at more than 60 hospitals nationwide).

“We’ve doubled in size in the last 4 years,” said Dr. Walker. “The reason is that we’re in a national reckoning on the corporatization of American medicine and the way in which graduate medical education is rooted in a cycle of exploitation that doesn’t center on the health, well-being, or safety of our doctors and ultimately negatively affects our patients.”

Here’s what residents are fighting for — right now.
 

Adequate Parental Leave

Christopher Domanski, MD, a first-year resident in psychiatry at California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) in San Francisco, is also a new dad to a 5-month-old son and is currently in the sixth week of parental leave. One goal of CPMC’s union, started a year and a half ago, is to expand parental leave to 8 weeks.

“I started as a resident here in mid-June, but the fight with CPMC leaders has been going on for a year and a half,” Dr. Domanski said. “It can feel very frustrating because many times there’s no budge in the conversations we want to have.”

Contract negotiations here continue to be slow — and arduous.

“It goes back and forth,” said Dr. Domanski, who makes about $75,000 a year. “Sometimes they listen to our proposals, but they deny the vast majority or make a paltry increase in salary or time off. It goes like this: We’ll have a negotiation; we’ll talk about it, and then they say, ‘we’re not comfortable doing this’ and it stalls again.”

If a resident hasn’t started a family yet, access to fertility benefits and reproductive healthcare is paramount because most residents are in their 20s and 30s, Dr. Walker said.

“Our reproductive futures are really hindered by what care we have access to and what care is covered,” she added. “We don’t make enough money to pay for reproductive care out of pocket.”
 

Fair Pay

In Boston, the residents at Mass General Brigham certified their union in June 2023, but they still don’t have a contract.

“When I applied for a residency in September 2023, I spoke to the folks here, and I was basically under the impression that we would have a contract by the time I matched,” said Madison Masters, MD, a resident in internal medicine. “We are not there.”

This timeline isn’t unusual — the 1400 Penn Medicine residents who unionized in 2023 only recently secured a tentative union contract at the end of September, and at Stanford, the process to ratify their first contract took 13 months.

Still, the salary issue remains frustrating as resident compensation doesn’t line up with the cost of living or the amount of work residents do, said Dr. Masters, who says starting salaries at Mass General Brigham are $78,500 plus a $10,000 stipend for housing.

“There’s been a long tradition of underpaying residents — we’re treated like trainees, but we’re also a primary labor force,” Dr. Masters said, adding that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are paid almost twice as much as residents — some make $120,000 per year or more, while the salary range for residents nationwide is $49,000-$65,000 per year.

“Every time we discuss the contract and talk about a financial package, they offer a 1.5% raise for the next 3 years while we had asked for closer to 8%,” Dr. Masters said. “Then, when they come back for the next bargaining session, they go up a quarter of a percent each time. Recently, they said we will need to go to a mediator to try and resolve this.”
 

Adequate Healthcare

The biggest — and perhaps the most shocking — ask is for robust health insurance coverage.

“At my hospital, they’re telling us to get Amazon One Medical for health insurance,” Dr. Masters said. “They’re saying it’s hard for anyone to get primary care coverage here.”

Inadequate health insurance is a big issue, as burnout among residents and fellows remains a problem. At UVM, a $10,000 annual wellness stipend has helped address some of these issues. Even so, union members at UVM are planning to return to the table within 18 months to continue their collective bargaining.

The ability to access mental health services anywhere you want is also critical for residents, Dr. Walker said.

“If you can only go to a therapist at your own institution, there is a hesitation to utilize that specialist if that’s even offered,” Dr. Walker said. “Do you want to go to therapy with a colleague? Probably not.”

Ultimately, the residents we spoke to are committed to fighting for their workplace rights — no matter how time-consuming or difficult this has been.

“No administration wants us to have to have a union, but it’s necessary,” Dr. Mostoller said. “As an individual, you don’t have leverage to get a seat at the table, but now we have a seat at the table. We have a wonderful contract, but we’re going to keep fighting to make it even better.”

Paving the way for future residents is a key motivator, too.

“There’s this idea of leaving the campsite cleaner than you found it,” Dr. Mostoller told this news organization. “It’s the same thing here — we’re trying to fix this so that the next generation of residents won’t have to.”

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

Before the 350 residents finalized their union contract at the University of Vermont (UVM) Medical Center, Burlington, in 2022, Jesse Mostoller, DO, now a third-year pathology resident, recalls hearing about another resident at the hospital who resorted to moonlighting as an Uber driver to make ends meet.

“In Vermont, rent and childcare are expensive,” said Dr. Mostoller, adding that, thanks to union bargaining, first-year residents at UVM are now paid $71,000 per year instead of $61,000. In addition, residents now receive $1800 per year for food (up from $200-$300 annually) and a $1800 annual fund to help pay for board exams that can be carried over for 2 years. “When we were negotiating, the biggest item on our list of demands was to help alleviate the financial pressure residents have been facing for years.”

The UVM residents’ collective bargaining also includes a cap on working hours so that residents don’t work 80 hours a week, paid parental leave, affordable housing, and funds for education and wellness.

These are some of the most common challenges that are faced by residents all over the country, said A. Taylor Walker, MD, MPH, family medicine chief physician at Tufts University School of Medicine/Cambridge Health Alliance in Boston, Massachusetts, and national president of the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), which is part of the Service Employees International Union.

For these reasons, residents at Montefiore Medical Center, Stanford Health Care, George Washington University, and the University of Pennsylvania have recently voted to unionize, according to Dr. Walker.

And while there are several small local unions that have picked up residents at local hospitals, CIR is the largest union of physicians in the United States, with a total of 33,000 residents and fellows across the country (15% of the staff at more than 60 hospitals nationwide).

“We’ve doubled in size in the last 4 years,” said Dr. Walker. “The reason is that we’re in a national reckoning on the corporatization of American medicine and the way in which graduate medical education is rooted in a cycle of exploitation that doesn’t center on the health, well-being, or safety of our doctors and ultimately negatively affects our patients.”

Here’s what residents are fighting for — right now.
 

Adequate Parental Leave

Christopher Domanski, MD, a first-year resident in psychiatry at California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) in San Francisco, is also a new dad to a 5-month-old son and is currently in the sixth week of parental leave. One goal of CPMC’s union, started a year and a half ago, is to expand parental leave to 8 weeks.

“I started as a resident here in mid-June, but the fight with CPMC leaders has been going on for a year and a half,” Dr. Domanski said. “It can feel very frustrating because many times there’s no budge in the conversations we want to have.”

Contract negotiations here continue to be slow — and arduous.

“It goes back and forth,” said Dr. Domanski, who makes about $75,000 a year. “Sometimes they listen to our proposals, but they deny the vast majority or make a paltry increase in salary or time off. It goes like this: We’ll have a negotiation; we’ll talk about it, and then they say, ‘we’re not comfortable doing this’ and it stalls again.”

If a resident hasn’t started a family yet, access to fertility benefits and reproductive healthcare is paramount because most residents are in their 20s and 30s, Dr. Walker said.

“Our reproductive futures are really hindered by what care we have access to and what care is covered,” she added. “We don’t make enough money to pay for reproductive care out of pocket.”
 

Fair Pay

In Boston, the residents at Mass General Brigham certified their union in June 2023, but they still don’t have a contract.

“When I applied for a residency in September 2023, I spoke to the folks here, and I was basically under the impression that we would have a contract by the time I matched,” said Madison Masters, MD, a resident in internal medicine. “We are not there.”

This timeline isn’t unusual — the 1400 Penn Medicine residents who unionized in 2023 only recently secured a tentative union contract at the end of September, and at Stanford, the process to ratify their first contract took 13 months.

Still, the salary issue remains frustrating as resident compensation doesn’t line up with the cost of living or the amount of work residents do, said Dr. Masters, who says starting salaries at Mass General Brigham are $78,500 plus a $10,000 stipend for housing.

“There’s been a long tradition of underpaying residents — we’re treated like trainees, but we’re also a primary labor force,” Dr. Masters said, adding that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are paid almost twice as much as residents — some make $120,000 per year or more, while the salary range for residents nationwide is $49,000-$65,000 per year.

“Every time we discuss the contract and talk about a financial package, they offer a 1.5% raise for the next 3 years while we had asked for closer to 8%,” Dr. Masters said. “Then, when they come back for the next bargaining session, they go up a quarter of a percent each time. Recently, they said we will need to go to a mediator to try and resolve this.”
 

Adequate Healthcare

The biggest — and perhaps the most shocking — ask is for robust health insurance coverage.

“At my hospital, they’re telling us to get Amazon One Medical for health insurance,” Dr. Masters said. “They’re saying it’s hard for anyone to get primary care coverage here.”

Inadequate health insurance is a big issue, as burnout among residents and fellows remains a problem. At UVM, a $10,000 annual wellness stipend has helped address some of these issues. Even so, union members at UVM are planning to return to the table within 18 months to continue their collective bargaining.

The ability to access mental health services anywhere you want is also critical for residents, Dr. Walker said.

“If you can only go to a therapist at your own institution, there is a hesitation to utilize that specialist if that’s even offered,” Dr. Walker said. “Do you want to go to therapy with a colleague? Probably not.”

Ultimately, the residents we spoke to are committed to fighting for their workplace rights — no matter how time-consuming or difficult this has been.

“No administration wants us to have to have a union, but it’s necessary,” Dr. Mostoller said. “As an individual, you don’t have leverage to get a seat at the table, but now we have a seat at the table. We have a wonderful contract, but we’re going to keep fighting to make it even better.”

Paving the way for future residents is a key motivator, too.

“There’s this idea of leaving the campsite cleaner than you found it,” Dr. Mostoller told this news organization. “It’s the same thing here — we’re trying to fix this so that the next generation of residents won’t have to.”

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

In a stunning verdict against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, a New Orleans jury has awarded $421 million in damages to a surgery center over the insurer’s alleged failure to fully pay out-of-network charges.

Insurance specialists told this news organization that the September 20 verdict is unusual. If upheld on appeal, one said, it could give out-of-network providers more power to decide how much insurers must pay them.

The case, which the St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery first filed in 2017 in Louisiana state court, will be appealed and could ultimately land in federal court. The center has seen mixed results from a similar case it filed in federal court, legal documents show. Physicians from the center declined comment.

At issue: Did Blue Cross fail to fully pay the surgery center for about 7000 out-of-network procedures that it authorized? 

The lawsuit claimed that the insurer’s online system confirmed that claims would be paid and noted the percentage of patient bills that would be reimbursed.

However, “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana either slow-paid, low-paid, or no-paid all their bills over an eight-year period, hoping to pressure the doctors and hospital to either come into the network or fail and close down,” the surgery center’s attorney, James Williams, said in a statement.

Blue Cross denied that it acted fraudulently, “arguing that because the hospital is not a member of its provider network, it had no contractual obligation to pay anything,” the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. Authorization of a procedure doesn’t guarantee payment, the insurer argued in court.

In a statement to the media, Blue Cross said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
 

Out-of-Network Free For All

Paul B. Ginsburg, PhD, professor of the Practice of Health Policy at the Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said out-of-network care doesn’t come with a contractual relationship.

Without a contract, he said, “providers can charge whatever they want, and the insurers will pay them whatever they want, and then it’s up to the provider to see how much additional balance bill they can collect from the patients.” (Some states and the federal government have laws partly protecting patients from balance billing when doctors and insurers conflict over payment.)

He added that “if insurance companies were on the hook to pay whatever any provider charges, nobody would ever belong to a network, and rates would be sky high. Many fewer people would buy insurance. Providers would [then] charge as much as they think they can get from the patients.”

What about the insurer’s apparent authorization of the out-of-network procedures? “They’re authorizing them because they believe the procedures are medically warranted,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “That’s totally separate from how much they’ll pay.”

Dr. Ginsburg added that juries in the South are known for imposing high penalties against companies. “They often come up with crazy verdicts.”

Mark V. Pauly, PhD, MA, professor emeritus of health care management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned why the clinic kept accepting Blue Cross patients.

“Once it became apparent that Blue Cross wasn’t going to pay them well or would give them a lot of grief,” Dr. Pauly said, “the simplest thing would have been to tell patients that we’re going to go back to the old-fashioned way of doing things: You pay us up front, or assure us that you’re going to pay.”

Lawton Robert Burns, PhD, MBA, professor of health care management at the Wharton School, said the case and the verdict are unusual. He noted that insurer contracts with employers often state that out-of-network care will be covered at a specific rate, such as 70% of “reasonable charges.”

A 2020 analysis found that initial breast reconstruction surgeries in the United States cost a median of $24,600-$38,000 from 2009 to 2016. According to the Times-Picayune, the New Orleans clinic billed Blue Cross for $506.7 million, averaging more than $72,385 per procedure.

Dr. Ginsburg, Dr. Pauly, and Dr. Burns had no disclosures.

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

In a stunning verdict against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, a New Orleans jury has awarded $421 million in damages to a surgery center over the insurer’s alleged failure to fully pay out-of-network charges.

Insurance specialists told this news organization that the September 20 verdict is unusual. If upheld on appeal, one said, it could give out-of-network providers more power to decide how much insurers must pay them.

The case, which the St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery first filed in 2017 in Louisiana state court, will be appealed and could ultimately land in federal court. The center has seen mixed results from a similar case it filed in federal court, legal documents show. Physicians from the center declined comment.

At issue: Did Blue Cross fail to fully pay the surgery center for about 7000 out-of-network procedures that it authorized? 

The lawsuit claimed that the insurer’s online system confirmed that claims would be paid and noted the percentage of patient bills that would be reimbursed.

However, “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana either slow-paid, low-paid, or no-paid all their bills over an eight-year period, hoping to pressure the doctors and hospital to either come into the network or fail and close down,” the surgery center’s attorney, James Williams, said in a statement.

Blue Cross denied that it acted fraudulently, “arguing that because the hospital is not a member of its provider network, it had no contractual obligation to pay anything,” the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. Authorization of a procedure doesn’t guarantee payment, the insurer argued in court.

In a statement to the media, Blue Cross said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
 

Out-of-Network Free For All

Paul B. Ginsburg, PhD, professor of the Practice of Health Policy at the Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said out-of-network care doesn’t come with a contractual relationship.

Without a contract, he said, “providers can charge whatever they want, and the insurers will pay them whatever they want, and then it’s up to the provider to see how much additional balance bill they can collect from the patients.” (Some states and the federal government have laws partly protecting patients from balance billing when doctors and insurers conflict over payment.)

He added that “if insurance companies were on the hook to pay whatever any provider charges, nobody would ever belong to a network, and rates would be sky high. Many fewer people would buy insurance. Providers would [then] charge as much as they think they can get from the patients.”

What about the insurer’s apparent authorization of the out-of-network procedures? “They’re authorizing them because they believe the procedures are medically warranted,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “That’s totally separate from how much they’ll pay.”

Dr. Ginsburg added that juries in the South are known for imposing high penalties against companies. “They often come up with crazy verdicts.”

Mark V. Pauly, PhD, MA, professor emeritus of health care management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned why the clinic kept accepting Blue Cross patients.

“Once it became apparent that Blue Cross wasn’t going to pay them well or would give them a lot of grief,” Dr. Pauly said, “the simplest thing would have been to tell patients that we’re going to go back to the old-fashioned way of doing things: You pay us up front, or assure us that you’re going to pay.”

Lawton Robert Burns, PhD, MBA, professor of health care management at the Wharton School, said the case and the verdict are unusual. He noted that insurer contracts with employers often state that out-of-network care will be covered at a specific rate, such as 70% of “reasonable charges.”

A 2020 analysis found that initial breast reconstruction surgeries in the United States cost a median of $24,600-$38,000 from 2009 to 2016. According to the Times-Picayune, the New Orleans clinic billed Blue Cross for $506.7 million, averaging more than $72,385 per procedure.

Dr. Ginsburg, Dr. Pauly, and Dr. Burns had no disclosures.

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

In a stunning verdict against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, a New Orleans jury has awarded $421 million in damages to a surgery center over the insurer’s alleged failure to fully pay out-of-network charges.

Insurance specialists told this news organization that the September 20 verdict is unusual. If upheld on appeal, one said, it could give out-of-network providers more power to decide how much insurers must pay them.

The case, which the St. Charles Surgical Hospital and Center for Restorative Breast Surgery first filed in 2017 in Louisiana state court, will be appealed and could ultimately land in federal court. The center has seen mixed results from a similar case it filed in federal court, legal documents show. Physicians from the center declined comment.

At issue: Did Blue Cross fail to fully pay the surgery center for about 7000 out-of-network procedures that it authorized? 

The lawsuit claimed that the insurer’s online system confirmed that claims would be paid and noted the percentage of patient bills that would be reimbursed.

However, “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana either slow-paid, low-paid, or no-paid all their bills over an eight-year period, hoping to pressure the doctors and hospital to either come into the network or fail and close down,” the surgery center’s attorney, James Williams, said in a statement.

Blue Cross denied that it acted fraudulently, “arguing that because the hospital is not a member of its provider network, it had no contractual obligation to pay anything,” the Times-Picayune newspaper reported. Authorization of a procedure doesn’t guarantee payment, the insurer argued in court.

In a statement to the media, Blue Cross said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.
 

Out-of-Network Free For All

Paul B. Ginsburg, PhD, professor of the Practice of Health Policy at the Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said out-of-network care doesn’t come with a contractual relationship.

Without a contract, he said, “providers can charge whatever they want, and the insurers will pay them whatever they want, and then it’s up to the provider to see how much additional balance bill they can collect from the patients.” (Some states and the federal government have laws partly protecting patients from balance billing when doctors and insurers conflict over payment.)

He added that “if insurance companies were on the hook to pay whatever any provider charges, nobody would ever belong to a network, and rates would be sky high. Many fewer people would buy insurance. Providers would [then] charge as much as they think they can get from the patients.”

What about the insurer’s apparent authorization of the out-of-network procedures? “They’re authorizing them because they believe the procedures are medically warranted,” Dr. Ginsburg said. “That’s totally separate from how much they’ll pay.”

Dr. Ginsburg added that juries in the South are known for imposing high penalties against companies. “They often come up with crazy verdicts.”

Mark V. Pauly, PhD, MA, professor emeritus of health care management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, questioned why the clinic kept accepting Blue Cross patients.

“Once it became apparent that Blue Cross wasn’t going to pay them well or would give them a lot of grief,” Dr. Pauly said, “the simplest thing would have been to tell patients that we’re going to go back to the old-fashioned way of doing things: You pay us up front, or assure us that you’re going to pay.”

Lawton Robert Burns, PhD, MBA, professor of health care management at the Wharton School, said the case and the verdict are unusual. He noted that insurer contracts with employers often state that out-of-network care will be covered at a specific rate, such as 70% of “reasonable charges.”

A 2020 analysis found that initial breast reconstruction surgeries in the United States cost a median of $24,600-$38,000 from 2009 to 2016. According to the Times-Picayune, the New Orleans clinic billed Blue Cross for $506.7 million, averaging more than $72,385 per procedure.

Dr. Ginsburg, Dr. Pauly, and Dr. Burns had no disclosures.

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

When Kimberly Fisher, MD, was a junior doctor, she got fired up when patients showed hesitancy about vaccines. She responded by providing numbers, data, and facts that proved vaccines were safe and effective in preventing life-threatening diseases. But she soon realized that regurgitating scientific evidence wasn’t a winning strategy. “I’ve made the mistake of launching into a let me tell you all the things that I know that you don’t know kind of lecture,” Dr. Fisher, now an associate professor of medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, a pulmonary physician, and a researcher interested in patient-provider communication, told this news organization. “Through experience and research, I have learned that when you do that, they stop listening.”

She said when patients give reasons for not getting vaccinated that are factually wrong and rooted in misinformation, the most common reaction is to correct that information and not let it stand. “That is important; it just can’t be the first thing you do,” she said.

Diane Arnaout, MD, a pediatrician at Cook Children’s Pediatrics in Fort Worth, Texas, said listening to some patients explaining why vaccine injections are poisonous or a conspiracy can be exhausting and frustrating, but she agrees that presenting scientific facts alone won’t change people’s minds. “Even in my worst days, I take the time to stop talking for a moment and let the parents talk about what concerns them because if you just get mad and put a wall up, then that trust is gone, possibly forever, not just about vaccines.”
 

The Default Option

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fisher has dedicated much of her time researching vaccine hesitancy. One of the most “fascinating and unexpected” findings of her work was that people are more likely to get vaccinated if a healthcare provider recommends that they get vaccinated in a “presumptive style,” which means that the provider uses language that presupposes that the person’s going to get vaccinated. “Rather than asking whether they wanted to get the vaccine conveying that the option of not getting it is just as valid, you make vaccination the default option,” she suggested.

The strategy wins many undecided, but it might not work on the most reluctant. “The presumptive recommendation is very directive, and if that works, great, but if it doesn’t, you need to shift to almost the opposite strategy, showing empathy and understanding about the person’s reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated,” Dr. Fisher said.
 

Find One Thing to Agree On

During a focus group on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy that Dr. Fisher conducted in December 2021, most physicians expressed frustration that some patients remained resistant despite their best efforts. However, one participant shared an approach she found effective with even the most hesitant patients. The physician would listen carefully and express understanding, and even if what the patient said wasn’t accurate, she would find a kernel of truth to agree with and align herself with the patient. By doing this, she made patients feel like they were a team.

The example she gave was if a patient said, “I don’t know. I’ve heard different things and don’t feel comfortable taking the vaccine,” she might respond with something like, “I think it’s great that you’re thinking critically about this before making a decision. I was the same way — I wanted to fully understand the data before getting vaccinated. I also wouldn’t want to take something if I thought it wasn’t safe. It’s good that you’re being thorough.” Acknowledging their careful thought process, the physician helped patients feel seen and understood only after she introduced additional information to guide them toward understanding why the vaccine might be beneficial.
 

Focus on the Disease

Dr. Arnaout’s frustration grows when at the end of an appointment some parents object to vaccines with irrational and misguided concerns. “You’ve trusted me with everything else we’ve discussed today — whether it’s a diaper rash or an ear infection — so why wouldn’t you trust me on this? Sometimes it feels almost offensive — why trust my medical expertise on everything else but not vaccines?” she said.

The answer, she believes, is that vaccines are preventive, and when the threat of disease feels distant, it’s hard to see the necessity of a painful shot for your healthy child. “But if your baby were dying from meningitis, the needles we use to deliver life-saving medications in the hospital would feel absolutely necessary. It’s hard as a parent to inflict pain for something you’ve never personally seen.”

Dr. Arnaout thinks it is important to bring the focus on the disease the vaccine prevents. “Let’s talk about measles — how if a baby in my waiting room has measles and coughs, the virus can stay suspended in the air for 2 hours, and 100% of unvaccinated people in that room will get measles.”

She said sharing personal stories can also help physicians connect with their patients. “I talk to parents every day about their vaccine concerns, and I’ve found that if I take the time to explain why we vaccinate, they start to understand. I also tell them, ‘I vaccinated my children for everything on time and give them the flu shot every year. Why would I offer your child something I wouldn’t give my own?’ That personal decision, made without hesitation, resonates with parents.”
 

Wired for Stories

Medical professionals have a professional necessity to think and speak with precision. Their training is based on analyzing studies and data, and they develop a specialized vocabulary to describe their findings accurately.

But the human brain is naturally inclined to process and make sense of information through the structure and narrative of stories. We instinctively organize reality into a “shape of a story” rather than just isolated facts, explained Ben Riggs, senior communications specialist at Kettering Health, Dayton, Ohio, a nonfiction writing coach and author. Storytelling also taps into the emotional, rather than just the rational, parts of the brain. This emotional connection helps make the information more memorable and impactful for the listener.

Mr. Riggs said that moving from this world of precision and accuracy to one that also requires effective communication with those who haven’t had that same training is much like learning a new language. “If they can’t speak in a way that non-scientists understand, it’s like the old saying: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”

Metaphors can help doctors translate scientific facts into language that meets people where they are, allowing patients to make informed decisions about their health. They can help physicians transform abstract concepts into vivid, tangible mental images that are easier for people to understand and relate to, Mr. Riggs explained. “We are predominantly concrete thinkers. Metaphors can create concrete scenes and do much of the heavy lifting when communicating complex ideas.”

“It’s important to align yourself with the other person by showing that you care, that you’re truly listening, and understand their perspective,” concluded Dr. Fisher. “Acknowledge their point of view and emphasize that they have autonomy in the decision-making process. This can open people up to hearing your perspective. You also need to know when to let go don’t cause a rift in the relationship.”

Dr. Fisher, Dr. Arnaout, and Mr. Riggs reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

When Kimberly Fisher, MD, was a junior doctor, she got fired up when patients showed hesitancy about vaccines. She responded by providing numbers, data, and facts that proved vaccines were safe and effective in preventing life-threatening diseases. But she soon realized that regurgitating scientific evidence wasn’t a winning strategy. “I’ve made the mistake of launching into a let me tell you all the things that I know that you don’t know kind of lecture,” Dr. Fisher, now an associate professor of medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, a pulmonary physician, and a researcher interested in patient-provider communication, told this news organization. “Through experience and research, I have learned that when you do that, they stop listening.”

She said when patients give reasons for not getting vaccinated that are factually wrong and rooted in misinformation, the most common reaction is to correct that information and not let it stand. “That is important; it just can’t be the first thing you do,” she said.

Diane Arnaout, MD, a pediatrician at Cook Children’s Pediatrics in Fort Worth, Texas, said listening to some patients explaining why vaccine injections are poisonous or a conspiracy can be exhausting and frustrating, but she agrees that presenting scientific facts alone won’t change people’s minds. “Even in my worst days, I take the time to stop talking for a moment and let the parents talk about what concerns them because if you just get mad and put a wall up, then that trust is gone, possibly forever, not just about vaccines.”
 

The Default Option

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fisher has dedicated much of her time researching vaccine hesitancy. One of the most “fascinating and unexpected” findings of her work was that people are more likely to get vaccinated if a healthcare provider recommends that they get vaccinated in a “presumptive style,” which means that the provider uses language that presupposes that the person’s going to get vaccinated. “Rather than asking whether they wanted to get the vaccine conveying that the option of not getting it is just as valid, you make vaccination the default option,” she suggested.

The strategy wins many undecided, but it might not work on the most reluctant. “The presumptive recommendation is very directive, and if that works, great, but if it doesn’t, you need to shift to almost the opposite strategy, showing empathy and understanding about the person’s reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated,” Dr. Fisher said.
 

Find One Thing to Agree On

During a focus group on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy that Dr. Fisher conducted in December 2021, most physicians expressed frustration that some patients remained resistant despite their best efforts. However, one participant shared an approach she found effective with even the most hesitant patients. The physician would listen carefully and express understanding, and even if what the patient said wasn’t accurate, she would find a kernel of truth to agree with and align herself with the patient. By doing this, she made patients feel like they were a team.

The example she gave was if a patient said, “I don’t know. I’ve heard different things and don’t feel comfortable taking the vaccine,” she might respond with something like, “I think it’s great that you’re thinking critically about this before making a decision. I was the same way — I wanted to fully understand the data before getting vaccinated. I also wouldn’t want to take something if I thought it wasn’t safe. It’s good that you’re being thorough.” Acknowledging their careful thought process, the physician helped patients feel seen and understood only after she introduced additional information to guide them toward understanding why the vaccine might be beneficial.
 

Focus on the Disease

Dr. Arnaout’s frustration grows when at the end of an appointment some parents object to vaccines with irrational and misguided concerns. “You’ve trusted me with everything else we’ve discussed today — whether it’s a diaper rash or an ear infection — so why wouldn’t you trust me on this? Sometimes it feels almost offensive — why trust my medical expertise on everything else but not vaccines?” she said.

The answer, she believes, is that vaccines are preventive, and when the threat of disease feels distant, it’s hard to see the necessity of a painful shot for your healthy child. “But if your baby were dying from meningitis, the needles we use to deliver life-saving medications in the hospital would feel absolutely necessary. It’s hard as a parent to inflict pain for something you’ve never personally seen.”

Dr. Arnaout thinks it is important to bring the focus on the disease the vaccine prevents. “Let’s talk about measles — how if a baby in my waiting room has measles and coughs, the virus can stay suspended in the air for 2 hours, and 100% of unvaccinated people in that room will get measles.”

She said sharing personal stories can also help physicians connect with their patients. “I talk to parents every day about their vaccine concerns, and I’ve found that if I take the time to explain why we vaccinate, they start to understand. I also tell them, ‘I vaccinated my children for everything on time and give them the flu shot every year. Why would I offer your child something I wouldn’t give my own?’ That personal decision, made without hesitation, resonates with parents.”
 

Wired for Stories

Medical professionals have a professional necessity to think and speak with precision. Their training is based on analyzing studies and data, and they develop a specialized vocabulary to describe their findings accurately.

But the human brain is naturally inclined to process and make sense of information through the structure and narrative of stories. We instinctively organize reality into a “shape of a story” rather than just isolated facts, explained Ben Riggs, senior communications specialist at Kettering Health, Dayton, Ohio, a nonfiction writing coach and author. Storytelling also taps into the emotional, rather than just the rational, parts of the brain. This emotional connection helps make the information more memorable and impactful for the listener.

Mr. Riggs said that moving from this world of precision and accuracy to one that also requires effective communication with those who haven’t had that same training is much like learning a new language. “If they can’t speak in a way that non-scientists understand, it’s like the old saying: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”

Metaphors can help doctors translate scientific facts into language that meets people where they are, allowing patients to make informed decisions about their health. They can help physicians transform abstract concepts into vivid, tangible mental images that are easier for people to understand and relate to, Mr. Riggs explained. “We are predominantly concrete thinkers. Metaphors can create concrete scenes and do much of the heavy lifting when communicating complex ideas.”

“It’s important to align yourself with the other person by showing that you care, that you’re truly listening, and understand their perspective,” concluded Dr. Fisher. “Acknowledge their point of view and emphasize that they have autonomy in the decision-making process. This can open people up to hearing your perspective. You also need to know when to let go don’t cause a rift in the relationship.”

Dr. Fisher, Dr. Arnaout, and Mr. Riggs reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

When Kimberly Fisher, MD, was a junior doctor, she got fired up when patients showed hesitancy about vaccines. She responded by providing numbers, data, and facts that proved vaccines were safe and effective in preventing life-threatening diseases. But she soon realized that regurgitating scientific evidence wasn’t a winning strategy. “I’ve made the mistake of launching into a let me tell you all the things that I know that you don’t know kind of lecture,” Dr. Fisher, now an associate professor of medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, a pulmonary physician, and a researcher interested in patient-provider communication, told this news organization. “Through experience and research, I have learned that when you do that, they stop listening.”

She said when patients give reasons for not getting vaccinated that are factually wrong and rooted in misinformation, the most common reaction is to correct that information and not let it stand. “That is important; it just can’t be the first thing you do,” she said.

Diane Arnaout, MD, a pediatrician at Cook Children’s Pediatrics in Fort Worth, Texas, said listening to some patients explaining why vaccine injections are poisonous or a conspiracy can be exhausting and frustrating, but she agrees that presenting scientific facts alone won’t change people’s minds. “Even in my worst days, I take the time to stop talking for a moment and let the parents talk about what concerns them because if you just get mad and put a wall up, then that trust is gone, possibly forever, not just about vaccines.”
 

The Default Option

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fisher has dedicated much of her time researching vaccine hesitancy. One of the most “fascinating and unexpected” findings of her work was that people are more likely to get vaccinated if a healthcare provider recommends that they get vaccinated in a “presumptive style,” which means that the provider uses language that presupposes that the person’s going to get vaccinated. “Rather than asking whether they wanted to get the vaccine conveying that the option of not getting it is just as valid, you make vaccination the default option,” she suggested.

The strategy wins many undecided, but it might not work on the most reluctant. “The presumptive recommendation is very directive, and if that works, great, but if it doesn’t, you need to shift to almost the opposite strategy, showing empathy and understanding about the person’s reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated,” Dr. Fisher said.
 

Find One Thing to Agree On

During a focus group on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy that Dr. Fisher conducted in December 2021, most physicians expressed frustration that some patients remained resistant despite their best efforts. However, one participant shared an approach she found effective with even the most hesitant patients. The physician would listen carefully and express understanding, and even if what the patient said wasn’t accurate, she would find a kernel of truth to agree with and align herself with the patient. By doing this, she made patients feel like they were a team.

The example she gave was if a patient said, “I don’t know. I’ve heard different things and don’t feel comfortable taking the vaccine,” she might respond with something like, “I think it’s great that you’re thinking critically about this before making a decision. I was the same way — I wanted to fully understand the data before getting vaccinated. I also wouldn’t want to take something if I thought it wasn’t safe. It’s good that you’re being thorough.” Acknowledging their careful thought process, the physician helped patients feel seen and understood only after she introduced additional information to guide them toward understanding why the vaccine might be beneficial.
 

Focus on the Disease

Dr. Arnaout’s frustration grows when at the end of an appointment some parents object to vaccines with irrational and misguided concerns. “You’ve trusted me with everything else we’ve discussed today — whether it’s a diaper rash or an ear infection — so why wouldn’t you trust me on this? Sometimes it feels almost offensive — why trust my medical expertise on everything else but not vaccines?” she said.

The answer, she believes, is that vaccines are preventive, and when the threat of disease feels distant, it’s hard to see the necessity of a painful shot for your healthy child. “But if your baby were dying from meningitis, the needles we use to deliver life-saving medications in the hospital would feel absolutely necessary. It’s hard as a parent to inflict pain for something you’ve never personally seen.”

Dr. Arnaout thinks it is important to bring the focus on the disease the vaccine prevents. “Let’s talk about measles — how if a baby in my waiting room has measles and coughs, the virus can stay suspended in the air for 2 hours, and 100% of unvaccinated people in that room will get measles.”

She said sharing personal stories can also help physicians connect with their patients. “I talk to parents every day about their vaccine concerns, and I’ve found that if I take the time to explain why we vaccinate, they start to understand. I also tell them, ‘I vaccinated my children for everything on time and give them the flu shot every year. Why would I offer your child something I wouldn’t give my own?’ That personal decision, made without hesitation, resonates with parents.”
 

Wired for Stories

Medical professionals have a professional necessity to think and speak with precision. Their training is based on analyzing studies and data, and they develop a specialized vocabulary to describe their findings accurately.

But the human brain is naturally inclined to process and make sense of information through the structure and narrative of stories. We instinctively organize reality into a “shape of a story” rather than just isolated facts, explained Ben Riggs, senior communications specialist at Kettering Health, Dayton, Ohio, a nonfiction writing coach and author. Storytelling also taps into the emotional, rather than just the rational, parts of the brain. This emotional connection helps make the information more memorable and impactful for the listener.

Mr. Riggs said that moving from this world of precision and accuracy to one that also requires effective communication with those who haven’t had that same training is much like learning a new language. “If they can’t speak in a way that non-scientists understand, it’s like the old saying: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”

Metaphors can help doctors translate scientific facts into language that meets people where they are, allowing patients to make informed decisions about their health. They can help physicians transform abstract concepts into vivid, tangible mental images that are easier for people to understand and relate to, Mr. Riggs explained. “We are predominantly concrete thinkers. Metaphors can create concrete scenes and do much of the heavy lifting when communicating complex ideas.”

“It’s important to align yourself with the other person by showing that you care, that you’re truly listening, and understand their perspective,” concluded Dr. Fisher. “Acknowledge their point of view and emphasize that they have autonomy in the decision-making process. This can open people up to hearing your perspective. You also need to know when to let go don’t cause a rift in the relationship.”

Dr. Fisher, Dr. Arnaout, and Mr. Riggs reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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