Ken Terry

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

When the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) ended on May 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scaled back the amount of COVID-related data that it had required hospitals to collect and report during the previous 3 years. The CDC had to do this, an agency spokesman said in an interview, because “CDC’s authorizations to collect certain types of public health data” expired with the PHE.

The question that arises from this policy change is whether the CDC will now have sufficient information on the evolution and spread of COVID to inform public health decisions in a timely manner. The CDC insists that it will have enough data to keep up with the virus, which repeatedly defied scientists’ expectations during the course of the pandemic. But some experts have doubts about whether this will turn out to be the case.

While the COVID pandemic is subsiding and transitioning to an endemic phase, many things about the coronavirus are still not understood, noted Marisa Eisenberg, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“COVID is here to stay, and it ebbs and flows but is staying at fairly consistent levels across the country,” she said in an interview. “Meanwhile, we haven’t established a regular seasonality for COVID that we see for most other respiratory illnesses. We’re still seeing pretty rapidly invading new waves of variants. With flu and other respiratory illnesses, you often see a particular variant in each season. There’s an established pattern. For COVID, that’s still shifting.”

Similarly, Sam Scarpino, PhD, a public health expert at Northeastern University, Boston, told the New York Times: “The CDC is shuffling COVID into the deck of infectious diseases that we’re satisfied living with. One thousand deaths a week is just unacceptable.”

William Schaffner, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that “how we deal with influenza is something of a template or a model for what the CDC is trying to get to with COVID.” It’s not practical for physicians and hospitals to report every flu case, and the same is now true for COVID. However, “we’re still asking for data on people who are hospitalized with COVID to be reported. That will give us a measure of the major public health impact.”

Dr. Eisenberg doesn’t fully subscribe to this notion. “COVID and influenza are both respiratory illnesses, and our initial pandemic response was based on playbooks that we’d built for potential flu pandemics. But COVID is not the flu. We still have to grapple with the fact that it’s killing a lot more people than the flu does. So maybe it’s a template, but not a perfect one.”
 

What data is being deleted

The CDC is now requiring hospitals to submit COVID-related data weekly, rather than daily, as it previously had. In addition, the agency has cut the number of data elements that hospitals must report from 62 to 44. Among the data fields that are now optional for hospitals to report are the numbers of hospitalized children with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; hospitalized and ventilated COVID patients; adults in the ICU with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID; adult and pediatric admissions with suspected COVID; COVID-related emergency department visits; and inpatients with hospital-acquired COVID.

Although widely feared by health care workers and the public, hospital-acquired COVID has never been a major factor in the pandemic, Dr. Schaffner said. “So why ask for something that’s actually not so critical? Let’s keep the emphasis on rapid, accurate reporting of people who are hospitalized because of this disease.”

Akin Demehin, senior director for quality and patient safety policy for the American Hospital Association, agreed that the rate of hospital-acquired COVID cases “has been very low throughout the pandemic.” That was one reason why CDC made this measure optional.

Dr. Eisenberg concurred with this view. “We worried about [hospital-acquired COVID] a lot, and then, because people were very careful, it wasn’t as much of a problem as we feared it would be.” But she added a note of caution: “Masking and other [preventive guidelines] are shifting in hospitals, so it will be interesting to see whether that affects things.”
 

CDC justifies its new policy

To put the hospital data reporting changes in context, it’s important to know that CDC will no longer directly track community levels of COVID and the percentage of tests that come back positive for COVID, which until now were used to measure transmission rates. (Laboratories no longer have to report these test data, whether they are in hospitals or in the community.) To track death rates, CDC will rely on the National Vital Statistics System, which is accurate but lags other kinds of surveillance by 2-3 weeks, according to the New York Times.

In a recent MMWR report, CDC defended its new COVID surveillance system, saying: “Weekly COVID-19 hospital admission levels and the percentage of all COVID-19–associated deaths will be primary surveillance indicators. Emergency department visits and percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test results will help detect early changes in trends. Genomic surveillance will continue to help identify and monitor SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Clarifying the latter point, CDC said that national genomic surveillance, along with wastewater surveillance, will continue to be used to estimate COVID variant proportions. Dr. Eisenberg stressed the importance of genomic surveillance at the hundreds of sites that CDC now maintains across the country. But currently, many of these sites are only monitoring the level of COVID.

CDC also observed that COVID-19 hospital admission levels have been shown to be “concordant” with community levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, rates of COVID-associated admissions and the percentages of positive test results, COVID ED visits, and COVID deaths are “suitable and timely indicators of trends in COVID-19 activity and severity.”
 

Ready to shift to voluntary reporting?

In a news release, AHA praised the “streamlining” of CDC requirements for data reporting but said that it hoped that mandatory reporting would be phased out as soon as possible.

The association noted that this would require action by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS now enforces the CDC requirements with a “condition of participation” (COP) provision, by which noncompliant hospitals could be excluded from Medicare. CMS has extended this COP to April 30, 2024, although it could choose to ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate it earlier.

If mandatory reporting were repealed, would most hospitals still report on the key COVID metrics? Mr. Demehin noted that before CMS implemented its COP, hospitals reported COVID data voluntarily, “and the participation rate was well over 90%. So setting up a mechanism similar to that is something we’ve encouraged CMS to consider.”

Dr. Eisenberg is skeptical. While bigger hospitals with more resources might continue reporting voluntarily, she said, safety-net hospitals in underserved areas might not, because they are especially short staffed. “Then you have disparities in which hospitals will report.”
 

Vaccinations: The sleeping dragon

COVID continues to ravage the nation. According to CDC statistics, there were 1,109 deaths from COVID in the U.S. in the week ending May 6, and total deaths have hit 1.13 million. There were 1,333 new COVID-related hospital admissions, and 7,261 people were in the hospital because of COVID.

Another eye-catching number: Only 16.9% of the U.S. population has received an updated COVID vaccine booster. Dr. Schaffner thinks that this is what we should really keep our eye on. While the combination of vaccinations and widespread SARS-CoV-2 infections has conferred herd immunity on most Americans, he said it’s temporary. “Whether your immunity comes from the virus and recovery from disease or from the vaccines, that immunity will wane over time. Unless we keep our vaccination rate up, we may see more future cases. We’ll have to see how that works out. But I’m nervous about that, because people do appear to be nonchalant.”

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

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

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

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

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

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the 10th annual report from nonprofit the Leapfrog Group, a national nonprofit organization focused on health care safety and quality.

For five outcome measures, the safety improvements saved an estimated 16,000 lives during the 10-year period, the report said. These included two “never” events that both declined by approximately 25%: incidents of falls and trauma and incidents of objects unintentionally left in a body after surgery.

There were also decreases in three health care–associated infections, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which decreased by 22%; central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), which fell by 43%; and Clostridioides difficile infection (C. Diff), which declined by 8%.

The patient safety record of U.S. hospitals improved over the past decade, according to the report.

“Never in history have we seen across-the-board improvement in patient safety until this last decade, coinciding with the history of the [Leapfrog] Hospital Safety Grade,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group, in a news release. “We salute hospitals for this milestone and encourage them to accelerate their hard work saving patient lives.”

During the past decade, the report noted, hospitals have widely adopted technology and staffing strategies that can protect patients from preventable harm and death. Leapfrog cited a nearly sevenfold increase in the adoption of computerized provider order entry, which can reduce medication errors by more than 40%. 

However, federal health officials separately have reported that the pandemic may have eroded some of those gains.

The Leapfrog report also cited a recent study, published in JAMA, that found that the rates of preventable adverse events in hospitalized patients – including adverse drug events, hospital-acquired infections, postprocedure events, and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and falls – significantly declined between 2010 and 2019.

That study pointed to specific decreases in the rates of adverse events for patients admitted for myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, and major surgical procedures. There were also significant drops in adverse events for all other conditions, the study found.

Quality improvement efforts targeting those four conditions might have partly accounted for the lower rates of adverse events in patients with the conditions, the study observed. But “similar interventions did not occur for most of the conditions represented in the ‘all other conditions’ group,” it said.

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the agency noted that from 2000 to 2017, there had been gains in nearly two-thirds of patient-safety measures in acute, post-acute, and ambulatory care. Hospital safety improved on nine metrics and was unchanged on three. For example, from 2014 to 2017, the number of some hospital-acquired conditions, including adverse drug events and C. Diff infections, dropped about 20%.

However, in an article this past February, officials of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said they had observed deterioration on multiple patient-safety metrics since the start of the pandemic. For example, central line infections, which had dropped by 31% in the five years before the COVID-19 outbreak, jumped 28% in the second quarter of 2020, compared with the prior-year period.

Commenting on these developments, the CMS authors said “the fact that the pandemic degraded patient safety so quickly and severely suggests that our health care system lacks a sufficiently resilient safety culture and infrastructure.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

telemedicine_elderly_woman_web.jpg

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

[embed:render:related:node:254423]

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

telemedicine_elderly_woman_web.jpg

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

[embed:render:related:node:254423]

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

telemedicine_elderly_woman_web.jpg

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

[embed:render:related:node:254423]

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

U.S. hospitals are being warned to prepare for a potential cyberattack from either the Russian government, criminal gangs resident in Russia, or both, as a result of the invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. and Western countermeasures against the aggressor nation.

The day after President Biden announced that the war had begun, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued an alert to hospitals. The cybersecurity division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), known as HC3, joined AHA with another public warning to the healthcare system on March 1. The federal government’s Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a “Shield’s Up” alert to private industry, supporting Biden’s March 21 statement about the need to improve domestic cybersecurity.

CISA warned that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to “malicious cyber activity against the U.S. homeland, including as a response to the unprecedented economic costs imposed on Russia by the U.S. and our allies and partners.” The agency noted that the Russian government is currently exploring options for cyberattacks.

John Riggi, the AHA’s national advisor for cybersecurity and risk, and a former senior executive in the FBI’s cyber division, said in an interview, “We are not aware of any cyberattacks related to the current conflict [in Ukraine]. We don’t know of any specific credible threats targeted against U.S. healthcare from the Russian government.”

He added that there have been reports of Russian hackers searching U.S. health IT security systems for weaknesses.
 

Criminal gangs remain a threat

Besides the Russian government, Mr. Riggi said, Russian criminal gangs are another threat to U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers. Of particular concern, he noted, is the Conti gang, which “has a history of conducting ransomware attacks against U.S. healthcare and the Irish health system.”

On February 25, said Mr. Riggi, the Conti group announced plans “to retaliate against the West for what they viewed as potential cyber aggression by the West against the Russian federation.”

Sophisticated hacker groups like the Conti gang that operate under the protection of the Russian government have “caused the greatest amount of disruption and have cost the most in terms of recovery and lost business,” Mac McMillan, CEO of CynergisTek, a cybersecurity consulting firm, told this news organization.

However, he said, the current threat is greater for two reasons: first, it will likely come directly from the Russian military intelligence service; and second, there are indications that the malware will be more destructive than ransomware. Two new types of malware identified by HC3 — HermeticWiper and WhisperGate — are designed to wipe out the data in their targets’ systems, rather than just encrypting it and disrupting access to data until a ransom is paid.

The Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU, is extremely capable and dangerous, Mr. McMillan said. He doubts that many healthcare systems, even if they are fairly well prepared, could withstand an attack from this source. And he fully believes that the attack, when it comes, will aim to wipe out data in victims’ systems in order to create as much chaos and disruption as possible in the United States.
 

Hospitals better prepared, but still have gaps

Like Mr. Riggi, Mr. McMillan said that the healthcare industry is better prepared for cyberattacks now than it was in 2017, when the NotPetya assault on Ukraine’s online infrastructure created considerable collateral damage in the United States. However, he said, hospitals still have a long way to go before they can counter and/or recover from a dedicated Russian government cyberattack.

The NotPetya malware, Mr. Riggi said, was of the destructive variety. “That digital virus spread uncontrollably across the globe like a biological virus. All the organizations and institutions that had contact with Ukraine became infected.”

According to an indictment of six GRU officers that the Department of Justice announced in December 2020, NotPetya disrupted operations at a major pharmaceutical company, subsequently revealed to be Merck, and hospitals and other medical facilities in the Heritage Valley Health System in Pennsylvania. In addition, it temporarily shut down the transcription services of Nuance Communications, which lost $98 million as a result. Merck received $1.4 billion from an insurer to cover its NotPetya loss, Bloomberg reported.

That incident prompted the AHA to urge hospitals to use “geo-fencing” to block online communications with Ukraine and neighboring countries. However, Mr. Riggi said, that solution is not too effective because hackers commonly use proxy servers in other countries to forward their malware to the intended target.

The AHA alert included a list of actions that hospitals and health systems could take to reduce their vulnerability to Russian hacking. Besides geo-fencing, the AHA suggested that hospitals:

• Heighten staff awareness of the increased risk of receiving malware-laden phishing emails;
• Identify all international and third-party mission-critical, clinical, and operational services and technology and put in place business continuity plans and downtime procedures;
• Check the redundancy, resiliency, and security of the organization’s network and data backups;
• Document, update, and practice the organization’s incident response plan.

Hospitals increasingly targeted

In recent years, Mr. Riggi noted, hospitals have invested much more in cybersecurity than before, and hospital executives have told him that this is now one of their top priorities, along with COVID-19 and workforce issues. This has been not only because of NotPetya, but also because healthcare facilities are being increasingly attacked by foreign ransomware gangs, he says.

The hospitals’ biggest vulnerabilities, he said, are phishing emails, remote desktop access, and unpatched vulnerabilities, in that order. It’s not easy to remedy the latter, he observed, because hospital networks can include up to 100,000 connected medical devices and other computers that can access the network, both within and outside the hospital.

“With the new work-at-home environment, you may have thousands of employees who are using the network outside the traditional perimeter of the organization,” he pointed out. “There’s no longer that standard firewall that protects everything.” In addition, he said, hospitals also have to depend on vendors to develop patches and implement them.

In Mr. McMillan’s view, the healthcare industry is a decade behind the financial industry and other sectors in cybersecurity. Among other things, he says, “half of our hospitals still don’t have active monitoring on their networks. They don’t have privileged access on their networks. A bunch don’t have segmentation or endpoint protection. There are so many things that hospitals don’t have that they need to fend off these attacks — they’re better off than they were in 2017, but they still aren’t where they need to be.”
 

Physician practices also at risk

Employed physicians, naturally, are in danger of losing access to their electronic health records if their hospital’s network goes down as the result of a cyberattack, he notes. Many community doctors also use the EHR of a local hospital, and they’d be similarly affected, Mr. Riggi noted.

Physician practices might be saved if the attack were directed at the hospital and they could still connect to the EHR through a cloud provider, Mr. McMillan said. But Mr. Riggi stressed that practices still need a plan for their doctors to keep working if they lose access to a hospital EHR.

“The other possibility is that the practice could be targeted,” he added. “As hospitals become more hardened, often these hackers are looking for the weak link. The practices could become victims of increased targeting. And the practice becomes the conduit for malware to go from its system to the hospital and infect the hospital system.”
 

Hackers can hit service suppliers

Hospitals’ mission-critical service suppliers may also be targeted by Russian hackers and others, or they may be the accidental victims of a cyberattack elsewhere, Mr. Riggi noted. In the case of Nuance, he said, the disruption in transcription services affected thousands of U.S. healthcare providers who were unable to access their transcribed notes. This not only harmed patient care, but also meant that hospitals couldn’t fully bill for their services.

Another type of service supplier, he said, was struck with a ransomware attack last year. This was a cloud-based service that operated linear accelerators used in radiation oncology. “So radiation oncology and cancer treatment for patients across the U.S. was disrupted, and radiation oncology was delayed for some patients up to 3 weeks.”

More recently, another cloud-based service called Kronos was struck by ransomware. Because of this incident, payroll and timekeeping services were disrupted across several industries, including healthcare.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan Grumet, MD, an internist in Northbrook, Ill., left his private practice about 2 years ago, partly because of competition from local retail clinics.

“We were always fighting the pharmacy clinics,” he said. “My generation of doctors was brought up to think we should have a one-stop shop. That was the idea behind being a primary care doctor. So it was very destructive to know your patients were going to another provider.”

Local retail clinics and urgent care centers were also co-opting many of the minor acute care visits that help primary care practices survive. “The number of visits for flu shots and simple medical problems drops,” said Dr. Grumet, who is now an end-of-life-care consultant and also works in hospices. “That can put downward economic pressure on primary care practices.”

Competition for primary care practices is ready to heat up even more, and the environment may soon become even more threatening for primary care doctors. Over the last year, the two largest pharmacy chains – CVS and Walgreens – announced their intentions to build larger retail clinics that will offer many aspects of traditional primary care. Walmart will also be doing the same.

How many geographical areas will be affected is unknown. However, observers say these new hybrid clinics could affect the revenues of some primary care practices.

“There will be more competition, no question,” said George Abraham, MD, MPH, president of the American College of Physicians.

Andrew Bazemore, MD, MPH, senior vice president of research and policy for the American Board of Family Medicine, agreed. “Seeing retail clinics finally embrace the promise of coordination and comprehensiveness in primary care is a promising step. It’s good to see CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens embracing the notion that they have to do more than just urgent care. On the flip side, it’s a source of competition for longstanding primary care clinics.”

Jeff Kagan, MD, an internist in Newington, Conn., noted that during the pandemic the booming demand for primary care has reduced competition from alternative care settings.

“But if this was not pandemic times, it would be very different. There are more urgent care walk-in clinics that do some primary care, and they are pulling away patients.”
 

New alternative care settings

The number of retail health centers has leveled off at around 2,000 clinics, about the same as in 2016. But CVS, which has around half that total, is now adding HealthHUB facilities, which offer nonemergency care. CVS had 800 of these quasi-primary care clinics in the first quarter of 2021 and planned to have 1,000 by the end of 2021, according to Managed Healthcare Executive.

Walgreens closed 150 of its retail clinics while partnering with VillageMD to develop 600 VillageMD clinics that are larger than its current in-store offices. The chain plans to build these clinics adjacent to Walgreens stores in 30 markets over the next 4 years. Currently, Walgreens has more than 50 VillageMD clinics, mostly in Sunbelt states.

Walmart opened the first of its new expanded-service clinics in 2019. Now it has clinics in Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida. These Walmart Health locations offer urgent care, primary care, labs, x-ray, and mental health therapy, as well as dental, optical, and hearing services.

The number of urgent care centers (UCCs), meanwhile, has mushroomed during the last decade. With the addition of 400-500 centers every year since 2014, there were 9,279 UCCs in the United States as of June 2019, according to the Urgent Care Association.

These UCCs usually have on-staff physicians. In contrast, most retail clinics are staffed by nurse practitioners. Another big difference is that in retail clinics, two-thirds of the patients – many of them young and healthy – have no regular primary care clinician; only a third of UCC patients don’t have a personal physician.

Because of these rootless patients, competition from retail clinics “is no big deal” to some primary care practices, said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a Harvard Medical School professor in Boston who has studied alternative care settings. On the other hand, he asked, why do so few UCC patients have a regular physician? That raises the question of how many of these patients would go to a primary care office if there were no retail clinics or UCCs.
 

Economic pressure on practices

Dr. Grumet’s point about retail clinics and UCCs depriving his practice of easy, lucrative visits is widely echoed among his peers. The fee-for-service payment system based on Medicare rates exacerbates the problem. As Dr. Abraham pointed out, when primary care doctors see a higher percentage of patients with complicated problems, the doctors don’t get compensated fairly for those visits.

Minor acute care, Dr. Abraham noted, is “easier work for the same pay. When I review 100 pages of records for someone who was hospitalized and figure out their 10 different problems and 20 medications, I get paid virtually the same as if I treated a diabetic with a common cold or a foot laceration. The complexity of thought is not factored completely into the reimbursement. And we use the easier visits to offset the more complex ones.”
 

What happened to continuity of care?

The fragmentation of care between primary care practices and alternative care settings also “diminishes the primary care function,” Dr. Bazemore said.

“Primary care is supposed to be first contact, covering most of what a patient needs – comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous,” he observed. “When you fragment and separate an urgent care function from the rest, so it’s not done in the context of that first contact, you weaken the primary care component without enhancing its function.”

Observers doubt the advent of larger retail clinics that provide more services is likely to solve this problem. In Dr. Mehrotra’s view, CVS’ HealthHUBs “are all about supporting primary care. But are they really? Who are the patients supposed to come back to? This is a critical point: When you ask patients who’s in charge of their care, what are they going to say?”

Retail clinics and urgent care centers have a similar issue, Dr. Grumet said. “If you see patients in the office, and they have problems late at night, they can call you. There’s a continuity of care you don’t get in alternative care settings. The real goal in those places is to get patients in, assess them, and get them out. Which is fine – for minor things. But for someone who needs more comprehensive care, it’s not so good.”

This is why the ACP advised against the provision of chronic care in alternative care settings, said Dr. Abraham. “The problem with retail clinics is they’ve expanded into chronic care management in one or more episodes that require care, but not true continuity of care. When you go to a primary care physician’s office, we discuss more than just acute problems or chronic health issues; we talk about wellness, lifestyle, preventive services, vaccines, and your family. Relationship-building occurs, which transcends more than care interaction. In a setting where you get your care and you leave, longitudinal, holistic care doesn’t build.”

Dr. Kagan put it more succinctly: “Sometimes urgent care walk-in clinics get in over their head [with chronic care]. They like the guy who has high blood pressure and comes in once or twice a year for a prescription refill. But they’re not involved with the guy who has much more trouble.” 

None of the urgent care doctors he knows of are taking long-term responsibility for their patients, Dr. Kagan added. “They don’t schedule follow-ups. They’ll see a patient for something, then say: ‘If you’re not better, come back and see me in a couple of weeks.’ ”
 

Two flavors of urgent care

Dr. Kagan has seen another type of doctor-patient relationship since he sold his practice to Hartford HealthCare 2 years ago. Hartford HealthCare owns 50% of an urgent care group called GoHealth.

“If our Hartford HealthCare patients can’t get into the office, we encourage them to go to a GoHealth facility,” he noted. “It’s not competition; it’s like one of our colleagues. We use the same EMR, so I can see everything that happens. I can even send someone who needs an x-ray to a GoHealth Center just for that.”

Moreover, GoHealth provides only urgent care. “So if it’s one of my patients, they refer them back to me for follow-up. And if somebody wanders in there without a primary care physician, they’ll hook them up with a Hartford HealthCare clinician.”

Dr. Bazemore has had a similar experience. He practices 1 day a week in his residency clinic in Fairfax, Va., which is owned by the Inova Health System. Inova created an adjoining urgent care facility that is open 7 days a week and uses the same EMR as Dr. Bazemore’s clinic.

This is the kind of relationship that Dr. Abraham would like to see between alternative care settings and traditional primary care practices: complementary rather than competitive. However, he questions the motives of hospital systems that own urgent care centers.

“Health care systems are starting these urgent care centers because they want to cash in on the same market,” he said. “I’m not convinced that their goal is to feed their primary care doctors. That is a potential advantage, but they also feed their specialists and try to blend procedures and other lucrative aspects of care into their system.”
 

What pharmacy chains are up to

Pharmacy chains have their own ulterior motives, Dr. Abraham noted. They built retail clinics for the same reason they sell drugs: to increase sales of consumer goods in their stores. Dr. Bazemore added that retail clinics also aim “to achieve a certain patient volume and incentivize what’s purchased in the pharmacy.”

Exacerbating the situation, CVS now owns Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers. Dr. Kagan believed that CVS’ new emphasis on HealthHUBs may be related to that. “CVS seems to be closing drugstores and opening up more primary care places, and now that they own Aetna, they’re trying to make Aetna patients go to CVS when they have a problem,” he said. Aetna patients are now required to fill their prescriptions at CVS.

Walmart has said it plans to open expanded-service clinics in locales that don’t have sufficient primary care, especially rural areas. The experts we consulted agree that Walmart won’t stop there if its new model is successful. In fact, Dr. Bazemore noted, competition from the new generation of in-store clinics is likely to be in areas where there are plenty of primary care doctors.

“For economic reasons, you’re going to see more of these clinics fill spaces where there’s already a sufficiency [of primary care] – starting with wealthy suburban areas,” Dr. Bazemore said. “Where you have a Walmart, Walgreens, or CVS, you tend to find more purchasers. I don’t know that it’s necessarily the answer to our access problems.”
 

What should primary care doctors do?

The obvious response of primary care practices to competition from retail clinics and urgent care centers that are open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, is to expand their hours. In addition, they can introduce same-day scheduling or reserve a block of time every day for walk-in patients.

That’s the approach that Dr. Grumet took in his private practice. “When my patients called me, I tried to deal with it right away. So it was baffling that some of them went to retail clinics.”

Actually, it’s not so baffling, Dr. Abraham said, when you consider that retail clinics are part of a one-stop-shopping experience that will become even more all-encompassing in stores that add quasi-primary care clinics. “You can pick up the consumables you need, you can pick up prescriptions, and you can see your physician without having to make multiple stops. It’s a great idea for pharmacies.”

How about telemedicine? A lot of acute care similar to that provided in alternative care settings can be offered during virtual visits, noted Dr. Bazemore. However, the pharmacy chains have been providing telemedicine for years, using third-party services. And while the convenience of virtual visits appeals to some patients, that’s no guarantee they won’t go to retail clinics.

Reaching out to patients with reminders about the need for checkups and preventive visits, either by phone or through a patient portal, is another technique that practices can use to retain patients. A recent Press Ganey poll showed that people value this kind of communication. But it hardly seems sufficient to hold off the competitive assault of pharmacy chains.

A flaw in the pharmacies’ strategy, however, could eventually come back to bite them: Because the new, larger clinics don’t provide comprehensive care, people will eventually have to turn to traditional primary care – if it’s still around.

“Here’s the problem,” Dr. Grumet explained. “If you’re going to do [in-store primary care], you have to take ownership of the patient and manage everything. You have to be a full-fledged primary care practice with on-call hours and ER coverage. Otherwise, you’re taking bits and pieces – probably low-hanging fruit – to make money, and taking those away from the primary care practice. Which means you’re taking them from the people who should be doing the job.”

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

Jordan Grumet, MD, an internist in Northbrook, Ill., left his private practice about 2 years ago, partly because of competition from local retail clinics.

“We were always fighting the pharmacy clinics,” he said. “My generation of doctors was brought up to think we should have a one-stop shop. That was the idea behind being a primary care doctor. So it was very destructive to know your patients were going to another provider.”

Local retail clinics and urgent care centers were also co-opting many of the minor acute care visits that help primary care practices survive. “The number of visits for flu shots and simple medical problems drops,” said Dr. Grumet, who is now an end-of-life-care consultant and also works in hospices. “That can put downward economic pressure on primary care practices.”

Competition for primary care practices is ready to heat up even more, and the environment may soon become even more threatening for primary care doctors. Over the last year, the two largest pharmacy chains – CVS and Walgreens – announced their intentions to build larger retail clinics that will offer many aspects of traditional primary care. Walmart will also be doing the same.

How many geographical areas will be affected is unknown. However, observers say these new hybrid clinics could affect the revenues of some primary care practices.

“There will be more competition, no question,” said George Abraham, MD, MPH, president of the American College of Physicians.

Andrew Bazemore, MD, MPH, senior vice president of research and policy for the American Board of Family Medicine, agreed. “Seeing retail clinics finally embrace the promise of coordination and comprehensiveness in primary care is a promising step. It’s good to see CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens embracing the notion that they have to do more than just urgent care. On the flip side, it’s a source of competition for longstanding primary care clinics.”

Jeff Kagan, MD, an internist in Newington, Conn., noted that during the pandemic the booming demand for primary care has reduced competition from alternative care settings.

“But if this was not pandemic times, it would be very different. There are more urgent care walk-in clinics that do some primary care, and they are pulling away patients.”
 

New alternative care settings

The number of retail health centers has leveled off at around 2,000 clinics, about the same as in 2016. But CVS, which has around half that total, is now adding HealthHUB facilities, which offer nonemergency care. CVS had 800 of these quasi-primary care clinics in the first quarter of 2021 and planned to have 1,000 by the end of 2021, according to Managed Healthcare Executive.

Walgreens closed 150 of its retail clinics while partnering with VillageMD to develop 600 VillageMD clinics that are larger than its current in-store offices. The chain plans to build these clinics adjacent to Walgreens stores in 30 markets over the next 4 years. Currently, Walgreens has more than 50 VillageMD clinics, mostly in Sunbelt states.

Walmart opened the first of its new expanded-service clinics in 2019. Now it has clinics in Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida. These Walmart Health locations offer urgent care, primary care, labs, x-ray, and mental health therapy, as well as dental, optical, and hearing services.

The number of urgent care centers (UCCs), meanwhile, has mushroomed during the last decade. With the addition of 400-500 centers every year since 2014, there were 9,279 UCCs in the United States as of June 2019, according to the Urgent Care Association.

These UCCs usually have on-staff physicians. In contrast, most retail clinics are staffed by nurse practitioners. Another big difference is that in retail clinics, two-thirds of the patients – many of them young and healthy – have no regular primary care clinician; only a third of UCC patients don’t have a personal physician.

Because of these rootless patients, competition from retail clinics “is no big deal” to some primary care practices, said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a Harvard Medical School professor in Boston who has studied alternative care settings. On the other hand, he asked, why do so few UCC patients have a regular physician? That raises the question of how many of these patients would go to a primary care office if there were no retail clinics or UCCs.
 

Economic pressure on practices

Dr. Grumet’s point about retail clinics and UCCs depriving his practice of easy, lucrative visits is widely echoed among his peers. The fee-for-service payment system based on Medicare rates exacerbates the problem. As Dr. Abraham pointed out, when primary care doctors see a higher percentage of patients with complicated problems, the doctors don’t get compensated fairly for those visits.

Minor acute care, Dr. Abraham noted, is “easier work for the same pay. When I review 100 pages of records for someone who was hospitalized and figure out their 10 different problems and 20 medications, I get paid virtually the same as if I treated a diabetic with a common cold or a foot laceration. The complexity of thought is not factored completely into the reimbursement. And we use the easier visits to offset the more complex ones.”
 

What happened to continuity of care?

The fragmentation of care between primary care practices and alternative care settings also “diminishes the primary care function,” Dr. Bazemore said.

“Primary care is supposed to be first contact, covering most of what a patient needs – comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous,” he observed. “When you fragment and separate an urgent care function from the rest, so it’s not done in the context of that first contact, you weaken the primary care component without enhancing its function.”

Observers doubt the advent of larger retail clinics that provide more services is likely to solve this problem. In Dr. Mehrotra’s view, CVS’ HealthHUBs “are all about supporting primary care. But are they really? Who are the patients supposed to come back to? This is a critical point: When you ask patients who’s in charge of their care, what are they going to say?”

Retail clinics and urgent care centers have a similar issue, Dr. Grumet said. “If you see patients in the office, and they have problems late at night, they can call you. There’s a continuity of care you don’t get in alternative care settings. The real goal in those places is to get patients in, assess them, and get them out. Which is fine – for minor things. But for someone who needs more comprehensive care, it’s not so good.”

This is why the ACP advised against the provision of chronic care in alternative care settings, said Dr. Abraham. “The problem with retail clinics is they’ve expanded into chronic care management in one or more episodes that require care, but not true continuity of care. When you go to a primary care physician’s office, we discuss more than just acute problems or chronic health issues; we talk about wellness, lifestyle, preventive services, vaccines, and your family. Relationship-building occurs, which transcends more than care interaction. In a setting where you get your care and you leave, longitudinal, holistic care doesn’t build.”

Dr. Kagan put it more succinctly: “Sometimes urgent care walk-in clinics get in over their head [with chronic care]. They like the guy who has high blood pressure and comes in once or twice a year for a prescription refill. But they’re not involved with the guy who has much more trouble.” 

None of the urgent care doctors he knows of are taking long-term responsibility for their patients, Dr. Kagan added. “They don’t schedule follow-ups. They’ll see a patient for something, then say: ‘If you’re not better, come back and see me in a couple of weeks.’ ”
 

Two flavors of urgent care

Dr. Kagan has seen another type of doctor-patient relationship since he sold his practice to Hartford HealthCare 2 years ago. Hartford HealthCare owns 50% of an urgent care group called GoHealth.

“If our Hartford HealthCare patients can’t get into the office, we encourage them to go to a GoHealth facility,” he noted. “It’s not competition; it’s like one of our colleagues. We use the same EMR, so I can see everything that happens. I can even send someone who needs an x-ray to a GoHealth Center just for that.”

Moreover, GoHealth provides only urgent care. “So if it’s one of my patients, they refer them back to me for follow-up. And if somebody wanders in there without a primary care physician, they’ll hook them up with a Hartford HealthCare clinician.”

Dr. Bazemore has had a similar experience. He practices 1 day a week in his residency clinic in Fairfax, Va., which is owned by the Inova Health System. Inova created an adjoining urgent care facility that is open 7 days a week and uses the same EMR as Dr. Bazemore’s clinic.

This is the kind of relationship that Dr. Abraham would like to see between alternative care settings and traditional primary care practices: complementary rather than competitive. However, he questions the motives of hospital systems that own urgent care centers.

“Health care systems are starting these urgent care centers because they want to cash in on the same market,” he said. “I’m not convinced that their goal is to feed their primary care doctors. That is a potential advantage, but they also feed their specialists and try to blend procedures and other lucrative aspects of care into their system.”
 

What pharmacy chains are up to

Pharmacy chains have their own ulterior motives, Dr. Abraham noted. They built retail clinics for the same reason they sell drugs: to increase sales of consumer goods in their stores. Dr. Bazemore added that retail clinics also aim “to achieve a certain patient volume and incentivize what’s purchased in the pharmacy.”

Exacerbating the situation, CVS now owns Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers. Dr. Kagan believed that CVS’ new emphasis on HealthHUBs may be related to that. “CVS seems to be closing drugstores and opening up more primary care places, and now that they own Aetna, they’re trying to make Aetna patients go to CVS when they have a problem,” he said. Aetna patients are now required to fill their prescriptions at CVS.

Walmart has said it plans to open expanded-service clinics in locales that don’t have sufficient primary care, especially rural areas. The experts we consulted agree that Walmart won’t stop there if its new model is successful. In fact, Dr. Bazemore noted, competition from the new generation of in-store clinics is likely to be in areas where there are plenty of primary care doctors.

“For economic reasons, you’re going to see more of these clinics fill spaces where there’s already a sufficiency [of primary care] – starting with wealthy suburban areas,” Dr. Bazemore said. “Where you have a Walmart, Walgreens, or CVS, you tend to find more purchasers. I don’t know that it’s necessarily the answer to our access problems.”
 

What should primary care doctors do?

The obvious response of primary care practices to competition from retail clinics and urgent care centers that are open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, is to expand their hours. In addition, they can introduce same-day scheduling or reserve a block of time every day for walk-in patients.

That’s the approach that Dr. Grumet took in his private practice. “When my patients called me, I tried to deal with it right away. So it was baffling that some of them went to retail clinics.”

Actually, it’s not so baffling, Dr. Abraham said, when you consider that retail clinics are part of a one-stop-shopping experience that will become even more all-encompassing in stores that add quasi-primary care clinics. “You can pick up the consumables you need, you can pick up prescriptions, and you can see your physician without having to make multiple stops. It’s a great idea for pharmacies.”

How about telemedicine? A lot of acute care similar to that provided in alternative care settings can be offered during virtual visits, noted Dr. Bazemore. However, the pharmacy chains have been providing telemedicine for years, using third-party services. And while the convenience of virtual visits appeals to some patients, that’s no guarantee they won’t go to retail clinics.

Reaching out to patients with reminders about the need for checkups and preventive visits, either by phone or through a patient portal, is another technique that practices can use to retain patients. A recent Press Ganey poll showed that people value this kind of communication. But it hardly seems sufficient to hold off the competitive assault of pharmacy chains.

A flaw in the pharmacies’ strategy, however, could eventually come back to bite them: Because the new, larger clinics don’t provide comprehensive care, people will eventually have to turn to traditional primary care – if it’s still around.

“Here’s the problem,” Dr. Grumet explained. “If you’re going to do [in-store primary care], you have to take ownership of the patient and manage everything. You have to be a full-fledged primary care practice with on-call hours and ER coverage. Otherwise, you’re taking bits and pieces – probably low-hanging fruit – to make money, and taking those away from the primary care practice. Which means you’re taking them from the people who should be doing the job.”

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

Jordan Grumet, MD, an internist in Northbrook, Ill., left his private practice about 2 years ago, partly because of competition from local retail clinics.

“We were always fighting the pharmacy clinics,” he said. “My generation of doctors was brought up to think we should have a one-stop shop. That was the idea behind being a primary care doctor. So it was very destructive to know your patients were going to another provider.”

Local retail clinics and urgent care centers were also co-opting many of the minor acute care visits that help primary care practices survive. “The number of visits for flu shots and simple medical problems drops,” said Dr. Grumet, who is now an end-of-life-care consultant and also works in hospices. “That can put downward economic pressure on primary care practices.”

Competition for primary care practices is ready to heat up even more, and the environment may soon become even more threatening for primary care doctors. Over the last year, the two largest pharmacy chains – CVS and Walgreens – announced their intentions to build larger retail clinics that will offer many aspects of traditional primary care. Walmart will also be doing the same.

How many geographical areas will be affected is unknown. However, observers say these new hybrid clinics could affect the revenues of some primary care practices.

“There will be more competition, no question,” said George Abraham, MD, MPH, president of the American College of Physicians.

Andrew Bazemore, MD, MPH, senior vice president of research and policy for the American Board of Family Medicine, agreed. “Seeing retail clinics finally embrace the promise of coordination and comprehensiveness in primary care is a promising step. It’s good to see CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens embracing the notion that they have to do more than just urgent care. On the flip side, it’s a source of competition for longstanding primary care clinics.”

Jeff Kagan, MD, an internist in Newington, Conn., noted that during the pandemic the booming demand for primary care has reduced competition from alternative care settings.

“But if this was not pandemic times, it would be very different. There are more urgent care walk-in clinics that do some primary care, and they are pulling away patients.”
 

New alternative care settings

The number of retail health centers has leveled off at around 2,000 clinics, about the same as in 2016. But CVS, which has around half that total, is now adding HealthHUB facilities, which offer nonemergency care. CVS had 800 of these quasi-primary care clinics in the first quarter of 2021 and planned to have 1,000 by the end of 2021, according to Managed Healthcare Executive.

Walgreens closed 150 of its retail clinics while partnering with VillageMD to develop 600 VillageMD clinics that are larger than its current in-store offices. The chain plans to build these clinics adjacent to Walgreens stores in 30 markets over the next 4 years. Currently, Walgreens has more than 50 VillageMD clinics, mostly in Sunbelt states.

Walmart opened the first of its new expanded-service clinics in 2019. Now it has clinics in Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida. These Walmart Health locations offer urgent care, primary care, labs, x-ray, and mental health therapy, as well as dental, optical, and hearing services.

The number of urgent care centers (UCCs), meanwhile, has mushroomed during the last decade. With the addition of 400-500 centers every year since 2014, there were 9,279 UCCs in the United States as of June 2019, according to the Urgent Care Association.

These UCCs usually have on-staff physicians. In contrast, most retail clinics are staffed by nurse practitioners. Another big difference is that in retail clinics, two-thirds of the patients – many of them young and healthy – have no regular primary care clinician; only a third of UCC patients don’t have a personal physician.

Because of these rootless patients, competition from retail clinics “is no big deal” to some primary care practices, said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a Harvard Medical School professor in Boston who has studied alternative care settings. On the other hand, he asked, why do so few UCC patients have a regular physician? That raises the question of how many of these patients would go to a primary care office if there were no retail clinics or UCCs.
 

Economic pressure on practices

Dr. Grumet’s point about retail clinics and UCCs depriving his practice of easy, lucrative visits is widely echoed among his peers. The fee-for-service payment system based on Medicare rates exacerbates the problem. As Dr. Abraham pointed out, when primary care doctors see a higher percentage of patients with complicated problems, the doctors don’t get compensated fairly for those visits.

Minor acute care, Dr. Abraham noted, is “easier work for the same pay. When I review 100 pages of records for someone who was hospitalized and figure out their 10 different problems and 20 medications, I get paid virtually the same as if I treated a diabetic with a common cold or a foot laceration. The complexity of thought is not factored completely into the reimbursement. And we use the easier visits to offset the more complex ones.”
 

What happened to continuity of care?

The fragmentation of care between primary care practices and alternative care settings also “diminishes the primary care function,” Dr. Bazemore said.

“Primary care is supposed to be first contact, covering most of what a patient needs – comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous,” he observed. “When you fragment and separate an urgent care function from the rest, so it’s not done in the context of that first contact, you weaken the primary care component without enhancing its function.”

Observers doubt the advent of larger retail clinics that provide more services is likely to solve this problem. In Dr. Mehrotra’s view, CVS’ HealthHUBs “are all about supporting primary care. But are they really? Who are the patients supposed to come back to? This is a critical point: When you ask patients who’s in charge of their care, what are they going to say?”

Retail clinics and urgent care centers have a similar issue, Dr. Grumet said. “If you see patients in the office, and they have problems late at night, they can call you. There’s a continuity of care you don’t get in alternative care settings. The real goal in those places is to get patients in, assess them, and get them out. Which is fine – for minor things. But for someone who needs more comprehensive care, it’s not so good.”

This is why the ACP advised against the provision of chronic care in alternative care settings, said Dr. Abraham. “The problem with retail clinics is they’ve expanded into chronic care management in one or more episodes that require care, but not true continuity of care. When you go to a primary care physician’s office, we discuss more than just acute problems or chronic health issues; we talk about wellness, lifestyle, preventive services, vaccines, and your family. Relationship-building occurs, which transcends more than care interaction. In a setting where you get your care and you leave, longitudinal, holistic care doesn’t build.”

Dr. Kagan put it more succinctly: “Sometimes urgent care walk-in clinics get in over their head [with chronic care]. They like the guy who has high blood pressure and comes in once or twice a year for a prescription refill. But they’re not involved with the guy who has much more trouble.” 

None of the urgent care doctors he knows of are taking long-term responsibility for their patients, Dr. Kagan added. “They don’t schedule follow-ups. They’ll see a patient for something, then say: ‘If you’re not better, come back and see me in a couple of weeks.’ ”
 

Two flavors of urgent care

Dr. Kagan has seen another type of doctor-patient relationship since he sold his practice to Hartford HealthCare 2 years ago. Hartford HealthCare owns 50% of an urgent care group called GoHealth.

“If our Hartford HealthCare patients can’t get into the office, we encourage them to go to a GoHealth facility,” he noted. “It’s not competition; it’s like one of our colleagues. We use the same EMR, so I can see everything that happens. I can even send someone who needs an x-ray to a GoHealth Center just for that.”

Moreover, GoHealth provides only urgent care. “So if it’s one of my patients, they refer them back to me for follow-up. And if somebody wanders in there without a primary care physician, they’ll hook them up with a Hartford HealthCare clinician.”

Dr. Bazemore has had a similar experience. He practices 1 day a week in his residency clinic in Fairfax, Va., which is owned by the Inova Health System. Inova created an adjoining urgent care facility that is open 7 days a week and uses the same EMR as Dr. Bazemore’s clinic.

This is the kind of relationship that Dr. Abraham would like to see between alternative care settings and traditional primary care practices: complementary rather than competitive. However, he questions the motives of hospital systems that own urgent care centers.

“Health care systems are starting these urgent care centers because they want to cash in on the same market,” he said. “I’m not convinced that their goal is to feed their primary care doctors. That is a potential advantage, but they also feed their specialists and try to blend procedures and other lucrative aspects of care into their system.”
 

What pharmacy chains are up to

Pharmacy chains have their own ulterior motives, Dr. Abraham noted. They built retail clinics for the same reason they sell drugs: to increase sales of consumer goods in their stores. Dr. Bazemore added that retail clinics also aim “to achieve a certain patient volume and incentivize what’s purchased in the pharmacy.”

Exacerbating the situation, CVS now owns Aetna, one of the biggest health insurers. Dr. Kagan believed that CVS’ new emphasis on HealthHUBs may be related to that. “CVS seems to be closing drugstores and opening up more primary care places, and now that they own Aetna, they’re trying to make Aetna patients go to CVS when they have a problem,” he said. Aetna patients are now required to fill their prescriptions at CVS.

Walmart has said it plans to open expanded-service clinics in locales that don’t have sufficient primary care, especially rural areas. The experts we consulted agree that Walmart won’t stop there if its new model is successful. In fact, Dr. Bazemore noted, competition from the new generation of in-store clinics is likely to be in areas where there are plenty of primary care doctors.

“For economic reasons, you’re going to see more of these clinics fill spaces where there’s already a sufficiency [of primary care] – starting with wealthy suburban areas,” Dr. Bazemore said. “Where you have a Walmart, Walgreens, or CVS, you tend to find more purchasers. I don’t know that it’s necessarily the answer to our access problems.”
 

What should primary care doctors do?

The obvious response of primary care practices to competition from retail clinics and urgent care centers that are open 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, is to expand their hours. In addition, they can introduce same-day scheduling or reserve a block of time every day for walk-in patients.

That’s the approach that Dr. Grumet took in his private practice. “When my patients called me, I tried to deal with it right away. So it was baffling that some of them went to retail clinics.”

Actually, it’s not so baffling, Dr. Abraham said, when you consider that retail clinics are part of a one-stop-shopping experience that will become even more all-encompassing in stores that add quasi-primary care clinics. “You can pick up the consumables you need, you can pick up prescriptions, and you can see your physician without having to make multiple stops. It’s a great idea for pharmacies.”

How about telemedicine? A lot of acute care similar to that provided in alternative care settings can be offered during virtual visits, noted Dr. Bazemore. However, the pharmacy chains have been providing telemedicine for years, using third-party services. And while the convenience of virtual visits appeals to some patients, that’s no guarantee they won’t go to retail clinics.

Reaching out to patients with reminders about the need for checkups and preventive visits, either by phone or through a patient portal, is another technique that practices can use to retain patients. A recent Press Ganey poll showed that people value this kind of communication. But it hardly seems sufficient to hold off the competitive assault of pharmacy chains.

A flaw in the pharmacies’ strategy, however, could eventually come back to bite them: Because the new, larger clinics don’t provide comprehensive care, people will eventually have to turn to traditional primary care – if it’s still around.

“Here’s the problem,” Dr. Grumet explained. “If you’re going to do [in-store primary care], you have to take ownership of the patient and manage everything. You have to be a full-fledged primary care practice with on-call hours and ER coverage. Otherwise, you’re taking bits and pieces – probably low-hanging fruit – to make money, and taking those away from the primary care practice. Which means you’re taking them from the people who should be doing the job.”

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