Kerry Dooley Young

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will speed nationwide payment decisions for as many as five promising new medical devices a year, a move that could get some products to patients earlier and spare companies from a bureaucratic slog to secure regional clearances.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in August finalized a long-awaited plan to accelerate coverage decisions on medical devices that have impressed regulators.

The intent is to create a smoother pathway for some devices that earned a “breakthrough” designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a label intended for innovative products that significantly advance treatment for serious illness.

“We’ll see how many they actually take on, but it could make a really big difference on how quickly devices make it through the Medicare coverage gauntlet and get to patients,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire, told this news organization.

Companies selling “breakthrough” devices face tougher challenges in securing Medicare payment than device makers whose products fit into already established niches. Previous Medicare decisions can serve as a path to coverage for those products.

The new CMS Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway addresses two causes of delay in securing Medicare coverage for newcomer devices:

• CMS delegates many decisions on new device coverage to Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). MACs are businesses owned by, or affiliated with, insurers such as Blue Cross plans. Companies sometimes need to work their way through several regional MACs to gain nationwide coverage of their devices.
• Congress sets different mandates for the FDA and CMS regarding medical products. The FDA needs to know a product is safe and effective enough for US sales. Companies sometimes produce enough evidence to show products can meet the FDA’s standard without generating sufficient data to compel Medicare coverage. Medicare covers about 66.7 million people: 59.1 million aged 65 years or older and 7.6 million with disabilities.

“Medicare beneficiaries are often older, have multiple comorbidities, and are often underrepresented or not represented in many clinical studies,” CMS said in its August notice on the TCET pathway.

“Consequently, a device’s potential benefits and harms for older patients with more comorbidities may not be well understood at the time of FDA market authorization,” the agency added.
 

Coverage With Evidence Development (CED) Experience

TCET is meant to help CMS officials clear coverage of breakthrough devices sooner, and on a nationwide basis, while sometimes continuing to study how well these products work for people enrolled in Medicare.

The TCET pathway builds on Medicare’s experience over two decades with its “CED” program. That program allows coverage of well-regarded new devices or treatments whose effects on older patients were not yet well understood.

In the TCET notice, CMS provided details of its plans for using contractors for evidence reviews and evidence development plans as part of its new coverage pathway.

Securing help from these experts outside of CMS, along with perhaps some new arrangements for in-house staff, would help the agency reach its goals for TCET, Dr. Zeitler said. She has published research on the CED process and has participated in cardiac registries associated with CED as both a researcher and a physician who implants devices.

The poster child for the benefits of the CED approach is the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices, said Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, a past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the senior medical officer for external affairs of the ACC’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).

Through the NCDR, ACC members worked with CMS for years in trying to find ways to gather evidence about the best uses of medical devices.

Brindis said this approach to evidence generation involved more tracking of off-label use and analysis of how TAVR devices performed in routine use through the data obtained through a registry, rather than relying solely on clinical trials requiring a much longer time frame for completion and at an increased cost.

This approach allowed cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists to steer the course of real-world evidence gathering, he said.

“We were able to expand indications for TAVR without relying on industry to fund randomized clinical trials that they may not have had interest or bandwidth or finances” to do, Dr. Brindis said. “And we already had the data in hand.”

The TCET policy is welcomed, although there remain questions about how well CMS will be able to carry out this program due to funding limitations, Dr. Brindis said. Groups such as the ACC may be able to help CMS by encouraging Congress to provide the agency with more money to carry out the TCET plans, Dr. Brindis said.

“The professional societies will work hand in hand with CMS in trying to achieve these goals” with TCET, he said.

AdvaMed, the trade group for makers of medical devices, also called for beefing up the administrative budget for CMS to speed reviews of innovative devices.

“The limited number of devices CMS can handle demonstrates clearly to Congress the need for greater resources,” AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker said in a statement.

Mr. Whitaker also described CMS’ decision to exclude medical tests from the TCET pathway as a disappointment.

The agency said the majority of coverage decisions on diagnostic tests should stay with MACs. In some cases, there may be a need for CMS to use its long-standing processes for considering a national coverage decision for certain tests, the agency said.

“The final TCET notice is a step toward a stronger, more robust policy, but doesn’t go far enough to help the Medicare seniors depending on breakthrough diagnostics and treatments to alleviate their suffering,” AdvaMed’s Mr. Whitaker said.

Dr. Brindis said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zeitler reported having received consulting and speaking fees, travel payments, and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Biosense Webster, Sanofi, NIH/NIGMS, Element Science, Edwards, Boston Scientific, Philips, and V-Wave.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Common complaints of abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, or rash can signal more serious disease that should be referred to specialty care or might be related to benign conditions.

Combine the vague nature of many patients’ descriptions and the pressure of short visits, and clinicians have a recipe for all manner of diagnostic error.

An estimated 5% of US adults who seek outpatient care each year experience a diagnostic error. Most Americans will eventually have this experience, according to a 2015 report from the National Academy of Medicine.

The most frequently missed diagnoses in primary care involve conditions such as pneumonia, decompensated heart failure, acute renal failure, cancer, urinary tract infection, and pyelonephritis.

“It’s not one or two or three types of diagnosis that are missed: We miss a lot of things, especially in primary care,” said Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

One of the most serious errors is to miss cancer, with failing to follow‐up on abnormal tests ranking consistently as one of the leading causes of malpractice claims. But most diagnostic errors do not lead to lawsuits, although they often result in missed and delayed opportunities for patients to get needed care.

In interviews with this news organization, experts who have studied the root causes of diagnostic error suggested primary care clinicians focus on several practices to avoid mistakes: Ask questions with humility and curiosity, use checklists, and brainstorm with patients the potential root cause of symptoms.
 

Humility and Curiosity 

Clinicians should remain aware of the potential for errors and reach out for assistance when needed, keeping an open mind that common symptoms may, in rare cases, signal serious illness, Dr. Singh said.

Dr. Singh recommends continual review with what he calls “byte-sized” learning through digital tools such as the Human Diagnosis app and podcasts and webinars offered by Clinical Problem Solvers.

Continuing education activities such as classes for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) can help keep physicians up to date and alert for cases where seemingly common symptoms may turn out to be something serious, said Richard M. Wardrop, III, MD, PhD, an internal medicine physician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and chair of the internal medicine board at the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“I’ve been in practice for 20 years. I’m double board certified in peds and medicine, and I regularly teach students and residents and mentor other physicians, but the further I go in my career and in practice, the more humble I become,” Dr. Wardrop told this news organization.

He said he recently spent a few hours on MOC for pediatrics and found the review was helpful in his practice in medicine.

“If I find myself taking care of a patient in a newborn nursery anytime soon, I’m going to understand the new hyperbilirubinemia guidelines,” Dr. Wardrop said. “That takes time and energy, but when I was done with the questions for this quarter, I felt good about myself.”
 

Checking It Twice

Clinicians should incorporate checklists into daily practice. Reviewing these with patients can not only help rule out an illness but also serve as a nonconfrontational method to inquire about issues patients may find uncomfortable, said John Ely, MD, MSPH, professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City.

Clinicians could benefit from the approach used in aviation, where checklists are a required and routine part of a pilot’s job, Dr. Ely said.

Although clinicians may assume patients expect them to work from memory and knowledge without this aide, many will see using a checklist as a sign of providing thorough care, he said.

Checklists can also open a pathway for discussions about potentially difficult or touchy issues in short visits. For example, a patient might feel defensive if a clinician asks about depression during a visit for abdominal pain. But incorporating a question in a checklist allows for a different framing of the question.

“A clinician could say ‘I didn’t say you were depressed because of your abdominal pain, I brought it up because it’s on the list,’” Dr. Ely said. The checklist is “a very easy way to bring up those things.”

Dr. Ely said he has cared for a few patients who sought help for abdominal pain that turned out to be linked to sexual abuse in their past. Dr. Ely used a checklist with these patients to review possible causes for their illness. He recalled one of these patients who had suffered sexual abuse and had depression, neither of which was readily apparent.

“There was nothing about her affect that appeared to be depressed, and she had seen multiple physicians unable to make a diagnosis,” Dr. Ely said. “She had worked up for multiple other diseases and this had never come up before.”
 

Cooperation 

“Coproduction” is how Kathryn McDonald, PhD, describes an ideal path to getting an accurate diagnosis. The intent is for clinicians to enlist patients in helping them in finding the root cause of symptoms.

“It’s bringing the patient into knowing that they are in a partnership to coproduce, knowing that there is a process going on,” said Dr. McDonald, who is codirector of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

In many cases, patients seek reassurance for ruling out a suspected condition, which the physician can sometimes provide. In others, clinicians may not be able to offer a concrete diagnosis.

“There are times when uncertainty is more pervasive and I will ask patients, ‘Let’s brainstorm this together,’” Dr. Wardrop said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

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

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

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

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

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

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

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