Kerry Dooley Young

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

An advisory panel at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lent support to bids that allow for earlier use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) therapies in treating multiple myeloma, while also calling for clear disclosure to patients of potential risks of these treatments.

The FDA asked its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to vote on two separate but similar questions at the March 15 meeting. Much of their discussion centered on higher rates of deaths for patients on the CAR-T therapies during early stages of key studies.

ODAC voted 11-0 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel, Carvykti, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen). J&J is seeking approval for use of the drug for adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), and are refractory to lenalidomide.

ODAC voted 8-3 to say the risk-benefit assessment appeared favorable for a requested broadening of the patient pool for idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, Abecma, Bristol Myers Squibb). The company is seeking approval of the drug for people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received an IMiD, a PI, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

The FDA staff will consider ODAC’s votes and recommendations, but is not bound by them. Janssen’s parent company, J&J, said the FDA’s deadline for deciding on the request to change the cilta-cel label is April 5. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said there is not a PDUFA deadline at this time for its application.

Both CAR-T treatments currently are approved for RRMM after 4 or more prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD, PI and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Last year BMS and Janssen filed their separate applications, both seeking to have their drugs used earlier in the course of RRMM.

Data provided in support of both requests for expanded use raised alarms at the FDA, with more deaths seen in the early stage of testing among patients given the CAR-T drugs compared to those given standard-of-care regimens, the agency staff said.

The application for cilta-cel rests heavily on the data from the CARTITUDE-4 trial. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group.

But the FDA staff review focused on worrying signs in the early months of this study. For example, the rate of death in the first 10 months post randomization was higher in the cilta-cel arm (29 of 208; 14%) than in the standard therapy arm (25 of 211; 12%) based on an analysis of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the FDA said.

In its review of the ide-cel application, the FDA staff said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm (95% CI: 11.8, 16.1), and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9) in the standard of care (SOC) arm.

However, the rate of deaths in the first 9 months post randomization was higher in the ide-cel arm (45/254; 18%) than in the comparator standard-of-care group (15/132; 11%) in the ITT population, the FDA staff said. In the safety analysis population, the rate of deaths from adverse events that occurred within 90 days from starting treatment was 2.7% in the ide-cel arm and 1.6 % in the standard-regimen group.

ODAC ultimately appeared more impressed by data indicating the potential benefit, measured as progression-free survival (PFS), of the two drugs under review, than they were concerned about the issues about early deaths raised by FDA staff.

Panelist Jorge J. Nieva, MD, of the University of Southern California said the CAR-T drugs may present another case of “front-loaded risk” as has been noted for other treatments for serious medical procedures, such as allogeneic transplantations and thoracic surgeries.

In response, Robert Sokolic, MD, the branch chief for malignant hematology at FDA, replied that the data raised concerns that did in fact remind him of these procedures.

“I’m a bone marrow transplant physician. And that’s exactly what I said when I saw these curves. This looks like an allogeneic transplant curve,” Dr. Sokolic said.

But there’s a major difference between that procedure and CAR-T in the context being considered at the ODAC meeting, he said.

With allogeneic transplant, physicians “counsel patients. We ask them to accept an upfront burden of increased mortality, because we know that down the line, overall, there’s a benefit in survival,” Dr. Sokolic said.

In contrast, the primary endpoint in the key studies for expansion of CAR-T drugs was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival as a second endpoint. The FDA staff in briefing documents noted how overall survival, the gold standard in research, delivers far more reliable answers for patients and doctors in assessing treatments.

In the exchange with Dr. Nieva, Dr. Sokolic noted that there’s far less certainty of benefit at this time when asking patients to consider CAR-T earlier in the progression of MM, especially given the safety concerns.

“We know there’s benefit in PFS. We know there’s a safety concern,” Dr. Sokolic said.“That’s not balanced by an overall survival balance on the tail end. It may be when the data are more mature, but it’s not there yet.”
 

Describing Risks to Patients

ODAC panelists also stressed a need to help patients understand what’s known — and not yet known — about these CAR-T therapies. It will be very challenging for patients to understand and interpret the data from key studies on these medicines, said ODAC panelist Susan Lattimore, RN, of Oregon Health & Science University. She suggested the FDA seek labeling that would be “overtly transparent” and use lay terms to describe the potential risks and benefits.

In its presentations to the FDA and ODAC, J&J noted that the COVID pandemic has affected testing and that the rate of deaths flips in time to be higher in the comparator group.

In its briefing document for the meeting, BMS emphasized that most of the patients in the ide-cel arm who died in the first 6 months of its trial did not get the study drug. There were 9 deaths in the standard-regimen arm, or 6.8% of the group, compared with 30, or 11.8% in the ide-cel group.

In the ide-cel arm, the majority of early deaths (17/30; 56.7%) occurred in patients who never received ide-cel treatment, with 13 of those 17 dying from disease progression, the company said in its briefing document. The early death rate among patients who received the allocated study treatment was similar between arms (5.1% in the ide-cel arm vs 6.8% in the standard regimen arm),the company said.

In the staff briefing, the FDA said the median PFS was 13.3 months in the ide-cel arm, compared with 4.4 months in the standard of care (SOC) arm. But there was a “clear and persistent increased mortality” for the ide-cel group, compared with the standard regimen arm, with increased rates of death up to 9 months. In addition, the overall survival disadvantage persisted to 15 months after randomization, when the survival curves finally crossed, the FDA staff said in its March 15 presentation.

ODAC Chairman Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, was among the panelists who voted “no” in the ide-cel question. He said the risk-benefit profile of the drug does not appear favorable at this time for expanded use.

“There’s a lot of optimism about moving these therapies earlier in the disease states of multiple myeloma,” Dr. Madan said, calling the PFS data “quite remarkable.

“But for me this data at this level of maturity really didn’t provide convincing evidence that ide-cel earlier had a favorable risk benefit assessment in a proposed indication.”

ODAC panelist Christopher H. Lieu, MD, of the University of Colorado, said he struggled to decide how to vote on the ide-cel question and in the end voted yes.

He said the response to the treatment doesn’t appear to be as durable as hoped, considering the significant burden that CAR-T therapy imposes on patients. However, the PFS data suggest that ide-cel could offer patients with RRMM a chance for significant times off therapy with associated quality of life improvement.

“I do believe that the risk-benefit profile is favorable for this population as a whole,” he said. “But it’s a closer margin than I think we would like and patients will need to have in-depth discussions about the risks and benefits and balance that with the possible benefits with their provider.”

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians have largely welcomed the arrival of Opill, the first over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill from Perrigo, which will reach US pharmacy shelves this month. Although the medicine has a long-track record of safe use, physicians and nurse practitioners may want to ready themselves to answer questions from patients about shifting to the option.

The switch to OTC status for the norgestrel-only contraceptive has the support of many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The end of the prescription-requirement removes a barrier to access for many women, especially those who lack insurance. But it also will take away a chief reason many women in their childbearing years make appointments with doctors, as they will no longer need prescriptions for birth control pills.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington School of Medicine, in Seattle, Washington, said she is also worried that the availability of an OTC pill will lead to missed opportunities to help patients avoid sexually transmitted diseases. For example, patients can get counseling about the need for testing for sexually transmitted diseases at the start of new relationships during a visit made to obtain a prescription for the pill.

“My hope is that they still follow our recommendations, which is to get tested with every partner,” said Dr. Oelschlager, who cares for many patients in their teens. “Adolescents are at a particularly high risk of infection compared to older ones.”

When clinicians do see patients, they may want to raise the issue of the OTC option and proper use. Patients will need to closely read materials provided for Opill, a step they might skip due to the ready access, according to Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which scrutinizes the safety of medical products.

“When something is sold over the counter, it’s perceived by individuals as being safe,” Dr. Zuckerman told this news organization. “There’s less concern and a little less interest in reading the instructions and reading the warnings.”
 

Considerations for Safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July approved the sales of a daily 0.075 mg norgestrel tablet without prescription. Perrigo told this news organization that it spent the intervening months ensuring retailers and consumers will receive education on the drug.

One of the biggest challenges for people using Opill may be sticking with the dosing schedule, according to Dr. Oelschlager.

“There are going to be people that have a harder time remembering to take a pill every day,” at the same time, said Dr. Oelschlager, who is chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. “We need to watch and see what happens as it becomes more widely available, and people start using it.”

Unexpected vaginal bleeding is the most common adverse event linked to this form of birth control, with over one fifth of participants from one study of the OTC drug reporting this side effect, according to an FDA memo.

“It is more likely to be a tolerability issue rather than a safety issue,” the FDA wrote.

Many prescription of birth control options contain estrogen, which is associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). But Opill contains only norgestrel, a form of progestin, which is not associated with thrombosis. Patients may be more likely to overestimate their potential risks for VTE than to underestimate them, according to Kwuan Paruchabutr, DNP, president of National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health and an assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

“This is a progesterone-only pill: The risk is relatively low” of VTE, Dr. Paruchabutr said.

Clinicians should also take special care with patients who are prescribed drugs for seizures, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and pulmonary hypertension or who are taking supplements containing St John’s wort.

Patients in their childbearing years who take isotretinoin are already expected to use some form of birth control.

“All patients on isotretinoin must be registered in the iPLEDGE program, which mandates monthly contraception counseling and monthly pregnancy tests for persons of childbearing potential,” Terrence A. Cronin, Jr, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, told news organization through email.

Dr. Oelschlager noted that many patients who take isotretinoin may benefit from taking a birth control pill containing estrogen, for which they will need a prescription. At least three pills have an FDA-approved indication for treating moderate acne, including Ortho Tri-Cyclen, Estrostep, and Yaz.

The FDA has posted consumer-friendly information about the OTC pill that clinicians can refer their patients to. For clinicians who want more information, ACOG released a practice advisory about the switch in status for this progestin-only pill.
 

The Cost

While federal laws mandate employer-based and Medicaid plans cover prescription birth control pills for free, the OTC version will carry a cost, according to A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Seven states, including New Mexico and New York, already have laws in effect that require health plans to cover certain OTC contraceptives without a prescription, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit research organization KFF.

Dr. Fendrick said it would be helpful for health plans to offer coverage for the OTC pill without copays even if they are not required to do so.

Priced at about $20 a month, Opill “is likely out of reach for many of the individuals who would most benefit from an OTC option,” Dr. Fendrick told this news organization in an email.

The new pill may be utilized most by those who do not have health insurance or have low incomes and cannot afford to see a doctor for a prescription, according to Sally Rafie, PharmD, a pharmacist specialist at University of California San Diego Health and founder of the Birth Control Pharmacist.

The manufacturer’s suggested retail prices will be $19.99 for a 1-month supply and $49.99 for a 3-month supply. Dublin-based Perrigo said it plans to offer a cost-assistance program for the drug in the coming weeks for people who have low incomes and lack insurance.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new Senate bill would require Medicare to test two tools routinely used by credit card companies to prevent fraud: Artificial intelligence (AI)-trained algorithms to detect suspicious activity and a system to quickly alert Medicare patients on whose behalf payment is being sought.

Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) recently introduced the Medicare Transaction Fraud Prevention Act, which calls for a 2-year test of this approach.

The experiment, targeted to start in 2025, would focus on durable medical equipment and clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and cover Medicare beneficiaries who receive electronic notices about claims.

The legislation would direct the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to test the use of predictive risk-scoring algorithms in finding fraud. The program would be modeled on the systems that credit card companies already use. Transactions could be scored from 1 (least risky) to 99 (most risky).

CMS would then check directly by email or phone call with selected Medicare enrollees about transactions considered to present a high risk for fraud.

Many consumers have benefited from this approach when used to check for fraud on their credit cards, Braun noted during a November hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Credit card companies often can intervene before a fraudulent transaction is cleared.

“There’s no reason we wouldn’t want to minimally at least mimic that,” Braun said at the hearing.

Asking Medicare enrollees to verify certain purchases could give CMS increased access to vital predictive data, test proof of concept, and save hundreds of millions of dollars, Braun said.

Concerns Raised

So far, Braun has only one cosponsor for the bill, Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), and the bill has drawn some criticism.

Brett Meeks, executive director of the Health Innovation Alliance, a trade group representing technology companies, insurers, and consumer organizations, objected to requiring Medicare enrollees to verify flagged orders. CMS should internally root out fraud through technology, not burden seniors, Meeks told this news organization.

Meeks said he has been following the discussion about the use of AI in addressing Medicare fraud. Had a bill broadly targeted Medicare fraud through AI, his alliance might have backed it, he said. But the current proposed legislation has a narrower focus.

Focusing on durable medical equipment, for example, could have unintended consequences like denying power wheelchairs to people with debilitating conditions like multiple sclerosis, Meeks said.

But Braun’s bill won a quick nod of approval from a researcher who studies the use of AI to detect Medicare fraud. Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, PhD, director of the Data Mining and Machine Learning Lab at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, said he sees an advantage to Braun’s approach of involving Medicare enrollees in the protection of their benefits.

The bill does not authorize funding for the pilot project, and it’s unclear what it would cost.

Detecting Medicare Fraud

The federal government has stepped up Medicare fraud investigations in recent years, and more doctors are getting caught.

A study published in 2018 examined cases of physicians excluded from Medicare using data from the US Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The OIG has the right to exclude clinicians from Medicare for fraud or other reasons. Chen and coauthors looked at Medicare physician exclusions from 2007 to 2017. They found that exclusions due to fraud increased an estimated 14% per year on average from a base level of 139 exclusions in 2007.

In 2019, CMS sought feedback on new ways to use AI to detect fraud. In a public request for information, the agency said Medicare scrutinizes fewer claims for payment than commercial insurers do.

About 99.7% of Medicare fee-for-service claims are processed and paid within 17 days without any medical review, CMS said at the time.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The ulcerative colitis drug etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) appears to be efficacious in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), with notable reductions seen in eosinophils.

Etrasimod, an investigational, oral selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator, also improved endoscopic features of EoE, overall symptom severity, and dysphagia in some patients, researchers reported.

Dellon_Evan_S_NORTH CAROLINA_web.jpg

“These results support further investigation of etrasimod in EoE,” said Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Dellon presented the results from the phase 2 study at the October 2023 annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Vancouver, Canada.
 

VOYAGE Study

In the VOYAGE study, 108 adults were included, with about half female and an average EoE diagnosis for nearly 5 years.

The patients were randomized to once-daily doses of etrasimod 2 mg, etrasimod 1 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 28-week still-ongoing extension period investigating the efficacy and safety of daily oral etrasimod 1 mg and 2 mg, compared with placebo.

After 24 weeks of treatment, there was a 52.4% reduction in peak eosinophil count (PEC) in the group of patients who were given a 2-mg daily dose of etrasimod compared to placebo, Dr. Dellon said.

Among patients given a 1-mg daily dose of etrasimod, there was a 27.4% reduction in PEC.

Meanwhile, there was a 61% increase in PEC for people who were given placebo.

Etrasimod also bested placebo on secondary outcomes in the VOYAGE study, including:

• Comprehensive histologic severity and extent scores, with a change of -0.2 in both etrasimod groups (P < .0001), compared with a slight increase for the placebo group.
• Endoscopic features (EREFS), with a decline of 1.3 for the 2-mg–dose etrasimod group (P = .0303), compared with a slight decline for the placebo group. There was a decline of 1.0 in the 1-mg–dose etrasimod group, but this was not statistically significant.

Higher Dose Arm, Better Results

In the email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Dellon said this appears to be “a dose-response where the 2-mg dose is needed to see more prominent response, but the EREFS response is in the right direction with the 1-mg dose.”

The study found a statistically significant decrease in only one segment of the trial participants, those who took the 2-mg dose and had a history of dilation, as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ). In that group, there was a reported decrease of 21.6 points from baseline.

“The average scores at baseline are in the low 30s. The range for DSQ (which is a composite score of daily measurements over 14 days) is from 0 to 84,” Dr. Dellon wrote. “A score in the 30s over 2 weeks is quite symptomatic, so a decrease of 21.6 points is substantial.”

Dr. Dellon and co-authors said etrasimod appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with use of the drug in patients with ulcerative colitis.

In treatment-emergent adverse events, elevation of liver transaminases was reported among 4 of 39 patients (10.3%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and 3 of the 41 patients (7.3%) in the 2-mg etrasimod group, compared with none in the placebo group.

Bilirubin elevation was reported in 2 patients (5.1%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and none in the 2-mg etrasimod or placebo groups.
 

Prospect of Another EoE Treatment

In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, Scott Gabbard, MD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, said, “For so many years, there was no FDA approved therapy [for EoE]. Now, we do have an FDA approved therapy.”

Gabbard_Scott_OH_web.jpg

The FDA approved the first treatment for EoE — dupilumab (Dupixent) — last year.

“It’s exciting to suddenly have the prospect of more options for patients with EoE. We can see multiple other options for our patients who sorely need therapy coming down the pipeline,” Dr. Gabbard said.

The data support further investigation, with only about one potential concern drawing attention during the presentation, he added.

“Overall, there were no serious adverse events,” Dr. Gabbard said. “There was clearly a change in baseline and overall symptom scores.”

In an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Jennifer Horsley-Silva, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, said the VOYAGE study was important because it serves as a proof of concept that targeting S1P receptors can affect EoE.

“A limitation of the study is it was conducted in a specific group of patients with EoE: a substantial number were refractory to corticosteroids, and over half had prior esophageal dilations,” she wrote.

Pfizer sponsored the VOYAGE trial. Dr. Dellon indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horsley Silva has research funding from Regeneron/Sanofi, Allakos, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and has participated in an advisory board for Sanofi Genzyme. No disclosures were included for Dr. Gabbard and no recent paper is available in PubMed for Dr. Horsley-Silva.

The ulcerative colitis drug etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) appears to be efficacious in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), with notable reductions seen in eosinophils.

Etrasimod, an investigational, oral selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator, also improved endoscopic features of EoE, overall symptom severity, and dysphagia in some patients, researchers reported.

Dellon_Evan_S_NORTH CAROLINA_web.jpg

“These results support further investigation of etrasimod in EoE,” said Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Dellon presented the results from the phase 2 study at the October 2023 annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Vancouver, Canada.
 

VOYAGE Study

In the VOYAGE study, 108 adults were included, with about half female and an average EoE diagnosis for nearly 5 years.

The patients were randomized to once-daily doses of etrasimod 2 mg, etrasimod 1 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 28-week still-ongoing extension period investigating the efficacy and safety of daily oral etrasimod 1 mg and 2 mg, compared with placebo.

After 24 weeks of treatment, there was a 52.4% reduction in peak eosinophil count (PEC) in the group of patients who were given a 2-mg daily dose of etrasimod compared to placebo, Dr. Dellon said.

Among patients given a 1-mg daily dose of etrasimod, there was a 27.4% reduction in PEC.

Meanwhile, there was a 61% increase in PEC for people who were given placebo.

Etrasimod also bested placebo on secondary outcomes in the VOYAGE study, including:

• Comprehensive histologic severity and extent scores, with a change of -0.2 in both etrasimod groups (P < .0001), compared with a slight increase for the placebo group.
• Endoscopic features (EREFS), with a decline of 1.3 for the 2-mg–dose etrasimod group (P = .0303), compared with a slight decline for the placebo group. There was a decline of 1.0 in the 1-mg–dose etrasimod group, but this was not statistically significant.

Higher Dose Arm, Better Results

In the email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Dellon said this appears to be “a dose-response where the 2-mg dose is needed to see more prominent response, but the EREFS response is in the right direction with the 1-mg dose.”

The study found a statistically significant decrease in only one segment of the trial participants, those who took the 2-mg dose and had a history of dilation, as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ). In that group, there was a reported decrease of 21.6 points from baseline.

“The average scores at baseline are in the low 30s. The range for DSQ (which is a composite score of daily measurements over 14 days) is from 0 to 84,” Dr. Dellon wrote. “A score in the 30s over 2 weeks is quite symptomatic, so a decrease of 21.6 points is substantial.”

Dr. Dellon and co-authors said etrasimod appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with use of the drug in patients with ulcerative colitis.

In treatment-emergent adverse events, elevation of liver transaminases was reported among 4 of 39 patients (10.3%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and 3 of the 41 patients (7.3%) in the 2-mg etrasimod group, compared with none in the placebo group.

Bilirubin elevation was reported in 2 patients (5.1%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and none in the 2-mg etrasimod or placebo groups.
 

Prospect of Another EoE Treatment

In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, Scott Gabbard, MD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, said, “For so many years, there was no FDA approved therapy [for EoE]. Now, we do have an FDA approved therapy.”

Gabbard_Scott_OH_web.jpg

The FDA approved the first treatment for EoE — dupilumab (Dupixent) — last year.

“It’s exciting to suddenly have the prospect of more options for patients with EoE. We can see multiple other options for our patients who sorely need therapy coming down the pipeline,” Dr. Gabbard said.

The data support further investigation, with only about one potential concern drawing attention during the presentation, he added.

“Overall, there were no serious adverse events,” Dr. Gabbard said. “There was clearly a change in baseline and overall symptom scores.”

In an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Jennifer Horsley-Silva, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, said the VOYAGE study was important because it serves as a proof of concept that targeting S1P receptors can affect EoE.

“A limitation of the study is it was conducted in a specific group of patients with EoE: a substantial number were refractory to corticosteroids, and over half had prior esophageal dilations,” she wrote.

Pfizer sponsored the VOYAGE trial. Dr. Dellon indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horsley Silva has research funding from Regeneron/Sanofi, Allakos, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and has participated in an advisory board for Sanofi Genzyme. No disclosures were included for Dr. Gabbard and no recent paper is available in PubMed for Dr. Horsley-Silva.

The ulcerative colitis drug etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) appears to be efficacious in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), with notable reductions seen in eosinophils.

Etrasimod, an investigational, oral selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator, also improved endoscopic features of EoE, overall symptom severity, and dysphagia in some patients, researchers reported.

Dellon_Evan_S_NORTH CAROLINA_web.jpg

“These results support further investigation of etrasimod in EoE,” said Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Dellon presented the results from the phase 2 study at the October 2023 annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in Vancouver, Canada.
 

VOYAGE Study

In the VOYAGE study, 108 adults were included, with about half female and an average EoE diagnosis for nearly 5 years.

The patients were randomized to once-daily doses of etrasimod 2 mg, etrasimod 1 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 28-week still-ongoing extension period investigating the efficacy and safety of daily oral etrasimod 1 mg and 2 mg, compared with placebo.

After 24 weeks of treatment, there was a 52.4% reduction in peak eosinophil count (PEC) in the group of patients who were given a 2-mg daily dose of etrasimod compared to placebo, Dr. Dellon said.

Among patients given a 1-mg daily dose of etrasimod, there was a 27.4% reduction in PEC.

Meanwhile, there was a 61% increase in PEC for people who were given placebo.

Etrasimod also bested placebo on secondary outcomes in the VOYAGE study, including:

• Comprehensive histologic severity and extent scores, with a change of -0.2 in both etrasimod groups (P < .0001), compared with a slight increase for the placebo group.
• Endoscopic features (EREFS), with a decline of 1.3 for the 2-mg–dose etrasimod group (P = .0303), compared with a slight decline for the placebo group. There was a decline of 1.0 in the 1-mg–dose etrasimod group, but this was not statistically significant.

Higher Dose Arm, Better Results

In the email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Dellon said this appears to be “a dose-response where the 2-mg dose is needed to see more prominent response, but the EREFS response is in the right direction with the 1-mg dose.”

The study found a statistically significant decrease in only one segment of the trial participants, those who took the 2-mg dose and had a history of dilation, as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ). In that group, there was a reported decrease of 21.6 points from baseline.

“The average scores at baseline are in the low 30s. The range for DSQ (which is a composite score of daily measurements over 14 days) is from 0 to 84,” Dr. Dellon wrote. “A score in the 30s over 2 weeks is quite symptomatic, so a decrease of 21.6 points is substantial.”

Dr. Dellon and co-authors said etrasimod appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with use of the drug in patients with ulcerative colitis.

In treatment-emergent adverse events, elevation of liver transaminases was reported among 4 of 39 patients (10.3%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and 3 of the 41 patients (7.3%) in the 2-mg etrasimod group, compared with none in the placebo group.

Bilirubin elevation was reported in 2 patients (5.1%) in the 1-mg etrasimod group and none in the 2-mg etrasimod or placebo groups.
 

Prospect of Another EoE Treatment

In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, Scott Gabbard, MD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, said, “For so many years, there was no FDA approved therapy [for EoE]. Now, we do have an FDA approved therapy.”

Gabbard_Scott_OH_web.jpg

The FDA approved the first treatment for EoE — dupilumab (Dupixent) — last year.

“It’s exciting to suddenly have the prospect of more options for patients with EoE. We can see multiple other options for our patients who sorely need therapy coming down the pipeline,” Dr. Gabbard said.

The data support further investigation, with only about one potential concern drawing attention during the presentation, he added.

“Overall, there were no serious adverse events,” Dr. Gabbard said. “There was clearly a change in baseline and overall symptom scores.”

In an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News, Jennifer Horsley-Silva, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, said the VOYAGE study was important because it serves as a proof of concept that targeting S1P receptors can affect EoE.

“A limitation of the study is it was conducted in a specific group of patients with EoE: a substantial number were refractory to corticosteroids, and over half had prior esophageal dilations,” she wrote.

Pfizer sponsored the VOYAGE trial. Dr. Dellon indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horsley Silva has research funding from Regeneron/Sanofi, Allakos, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, and has participated in an advisory board for Sanofi Genzyme. No disclosures were included for Dr. Gabbard and no recent paper is available in PubMed for Dr. Horsley-Silva.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Cleveland_Noa_ILL_web.jpg

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Dolinger_Michael_Icahn_NY_web.jpg

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Cleveland_Noa_ILL_web.jpg

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Dolinger_Michael_Icahn_NY_web.jpg

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

Monitoring inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with intestinal ultrasound (IUS) appeared to lead to earlier treatment changes and faster remission for patients, compared with conventional disease monitoring, according to a small retrospective analysis.

“Current disease monitoring tools have significant limitations,” said Noa Krugliak Cleveland, MD, director of the intestinal ultrasound program at the University of Chicago. “Intestinal ultrasound is an innovative technology that enables point-of-care assessment.”

Cleveland_Noa_ILL_web.jpg

Dr. Cleveland presented the findings at the October 2023 American College of Gastroenterology’s annual scientific meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

The analysis was based on 30 patients with IBD in an ongoing real-world prospective study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq, Abbvie) who were not in clinical remission at week 8. For 11 patients, routine clinical care included IUS; the other 19 patients were monitored using a conventional approach.

In the study, both groups were almost evenly split in terms of diagnosis. In the IUS group, four patients had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis. In the conventional management group, six had Crohn’s disease and five had ulcerative colitis.

The primary endpoint was time to treatment change.

For the secondary endpoint, the researchers defined clinical remission as a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤ 2, or Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≤ 4, and by IUS as bowel wall thickness ≤ 3 mm in the colon or terminal ileum and no hyperemia by color Doppler signal.

The average time to treatment change in the IUS group was 1.1 days, compared with 16.6 days for the conventional management group, Dr. Cleveland reported.

The average time to clinical remission was 26.8 days for the IUS group, compared with 55.3 days for the conventional management group.

The delays in treatment change in the conventional management group were attributed to awaiting test results and endoscopy procedures, as well as communications among clinical team members.

Strength of this research project included its prospective data collection and the experienced sonographers who participated, Dr. Cleveland and colleagues said. Limitations included retrospective analysis, a small number of patients on a single therapy, and the potential for bias in patient selection. Studies of other therapies and a prospective trial are underway.

During the presentation, Dr. Cleveland commented about what kinds of treatment changes were made for patients in the study. They commonly involved extending the induction time, and, in some cases, patients were switched to another treatment, she said.

In an interview, Michael Dolinger, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said more research needs to be done to show whether IUS will improve outcomes.

“They’re showing that they make more changes sooner,” he said. “Does that actually affect and improve outcomes? That’s the big question.”

Dolinger_Michael_Icahn_NY_web.jpg

Dr. Dolinger said the concept for using IUS is that it helps physicians catch disease flares earlier and respond faster with changes to the treatment plan, thus preventing the buildup of chronic bowel damage.

“That’s the concept, but that concept is actually not so proven in reality” yet, he said. “But I do believe that they’re on the right path.”

In Dr. Dolinger’s view, adding ultrasound provides a more patient-centric approach to care of people with IBD. With more traditional approaches, patients often are waiting for results of tests done outside of the visit, such as MRI.

“With ultrasound, I am walking them through the results as it’s happening in real time during the clinic visit,” Dr. Dolinger said. ”I am showing them on the screen, allowing them to ask questions. They’re telling me about their symptoms, as I’m putting the probe on where it may hurt, as I’m showing them inflammation or healing. And that changes the whole conversation.”

The study received support from the Mutchnik Family Foundation. Dr. Cleveland reported financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Neurologica, and Takeda. Her coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple drug and device makers. Dr. Dolinger said he is a consultant for Samsung’s Neurologica Corp., which makes ultrasound equipment.

A post hoc analysis of three clinical trials of tenapanor (Ibsrela, Ardelyx) shows the drug works within weeks to improve bowel function and abdominal symptoms in people with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

“Although onset of action occurs within the first week, continued therapy allows for a greater percentage of patients to achieve a meaningful response,” wrote Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, and co-authors in an abstract.

Dr. Lacy presented the results of this work at the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) in Vancouver, Canada.

Lacy_Brian_FL_web.jpg

Tenapanor acts as an inhibitor of the sodium-hydrogen exchanger 3 (NHE3) and works to reduce dietary sodium absorption, which, in turn, leads to retention of fluid in the intestinal lumen, resulting in softer stool and accelerated intestinal transit, he explained.

Tenapanor is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults with IBS-C.

The major goal of the analysis presented at ACG was to identify times to responses for individual symptoms, said Dr. Lacy in an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News.

Prior studies focused on global improvement in IBS-C symptoms using the FDA-approved definition of a responder: A patient who experienced at least a 30% reduction in the weekly average abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) in the same week for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks.

“Thus, we thought it important to pool all of the data together for this post-hoc analysis, as clinicians and patients often wonder when an individual symptom will respond,” Dr. Lacy wrote in an email.

Dr. Lacy and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 2b (NCT01923428) and phase 3 T3MPO-1 (NCT02621892) and T3MPO-2 (NCT02686138) studies to evaluate time to onset of tenapanor effect on bowel function and on individual and global abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C.

This resulted in a pooled population of 1372 intent-to-treat patients (688 placebo, 684 on the study drug), with demographics generally similar across the studies, they said.

They found that the median time to CSBM was 2 weeks, with an estimated response probability of 52.3% by week 2, 72.5% by week 8, and 76.7% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal pain response was 4 weeks; the estimated response probability was 54.6% by week 4, 67.9% by week 8, and 72.3% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal bloating response was 5 weeks; the estimated response probability was 48.1% by week 4, 61.9% by week 8, and 67.7% by week 12.

“The teaching message to patients and providers is not to give up too early; staying on this medication allowed 25% more people to improve symptoms,” Dr. Lacy wrote.

In separate interviews, two other researchers Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, director of research for Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, and Brooks D. Cash, MD, AGAF, chief for gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, agreed with Dr. Lacy’s message.

Lembo_Anthony_J_BOSTON_web.jpg

The study will help in counseling patients who may need to wait a bit to see a response from tenapanor, Dr. Lembo said.

“You wish patients would get better right away of course,” he said, but there can be some delay, even in cases where a drug will ultimately work for a patient.

Patients want to know if they should continue and if it is worth getting another prescription for another month if they haven’t had a significant improvement response, Dr. Lembo said.

Both Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash said that it takes time for many drugs, not just these medications, to produce a noticeable effect for patients.

Still, “disorders of the gut-brain interaction likely do require a longer runway time to really assess their effects on multiple symptoms,” Dr. Cash said.

113455_Cash_Brooks_MOBILE_web.jpg

The tenapanor research presented at ACG will help in conveying that message to patients, Dr. Cash said.

“It also reinforces for clinicians not to be impatient,” he said.

Dr. Lacy and co-authors directed the development of the poster, and medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and funded by Ardelyx. Dr. Lacy has financial and consulting relationships with AbbVie, Ardelyx, Gernelli, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix, and Sanofi, Co-authors are employees of Ardelyx. Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash have financial relationships with Ardelyx and other makers of IBS drugs.

A post hoc analysis of three clinical trials of tenapanor (Ibsrela, Ardelyx) shows the drug works within weeks to improve bowel function and abdominal symptoms in people with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

“Although onset of action occurs within the first week, continued therapy allows for a greater percentage of patients to achieve a meaningful response,” wrote Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, and co-authors in an abstract.

Dr. Lacy presented the results of this work at the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) in Vancouver, Canada.

Lacy_Brian_FL_web.jpg

Tenapanor acts as an inhibitor of the sodium-hydrogen exchanger 3 (NHE3) and works to reduce dietary sodium absorption, which, in turn, leads to retention of fluid in the intestinal lumen, resulting in softer stool and accelerated intestinal transit, he explained.

Tenapanor is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults with IBS-C.

The major goal of the analysis presented at ACG was to identify times to responses for individual symptoms, said Dr. Lacy in an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News.

Prior studies focused on global improvement in IBS-C symptoms using the FDA-approved definition of a responder: A patient who experienced at least a 30% reduction in the weekly average abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) in the same week for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks.

“Thus, we thought it important to pool all of the data together for this post-hoc analysis, as clinicians and patients often wonder when an individual symptom will respond,” Dr. Lacy wrote in an email.

Dr. Lacy and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 2b (NCT01923428) and phase 3 T3MPO-1 (NCT02621892) and T3MPO-2 (NCT02686138) studies to evaluate time to onset of tenapanor effect on bowel function and on individual and global abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C.

This resulted in a pooled population of 1372 intent-to-treat patients (688 placebo, 684 on the study drug), with demographics generally similar across the studies, they said.

They found that the median time to CSBM was 2 weeks, with an estimated response probability of 52.3% by week 2, 72.5% by week 8, and 76.7% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal pain response was 4 weeks; the estimated response probability was 54.6% by week 4, 67.9% by week 8, and 72.3% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal bloating response was 5 weeks; the estimated response probability was 48.1% by week 4, 61.9% by week 8, and 67.7% by week 12.

“The teaching message to patients and providers is not to give up too early; staying on this medication allowed 25% more people to improve symptoms,” Dr. Lacy wrote.

In separate interviews, two other researchers Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, director of research for Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, and Brooks D. Cash, MD, AGAF, chief for gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, agreed with Dr. Lacy’s message.

Lembo_Anthony_J_BOSTON_web.jpg

The study will help in counseling patients who may need to wait a bit to see a response from tenapanor, Dr. Lembo said.

“You wish patients would get better right away of course,” he said, but there can be some delay, even in cases where a drug will ultimately work for a patient.

Patients want to know if they should continue and if it is worth getting another prescription for another month if they haven’t had a significant improvement response, Dr. Lembo said.

Both Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash said that it takes time for many drugs, not just these medications, to produce a noticeable effect for patients.

Still, “disorders of the gut-brain interaction likely do require a longer runway time to really assess their effects on multiple symptoms,” Dr. Cash said.

113455_Cash_Brooks_MOBILE_web.jpg

The tenapanor research presented at ACG will help in conveying that message to patients, Dr. Cash said.

“It also reinforces for clinicians not to be impatient,” he said.

Dr. Lacy and co-authors directed the development of the poster, and medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and funded by Ardelyx. Dr. Lacy has financial and consulting relationships with AbbVie, Ardelyx, Gernelli, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix, and Sanofi, Co-authors are employees of Ardelyx. Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash have financial relationships with Ardelyx and other makers of IBS drugs.

A post hoc analysis of three clinical trials of tenapanor (Ibsrela, Ardelyx) shows the drug works within weeks to improve bowel function and abdominal symptoms in people with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

“Although onset of action occurs within the first week, continued therapy allows for a greater percentage of patients to achieve a meaningful response,” wrote Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, and co-authors in an abstract.

Dr. Lacy presented the results of this work at the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) in Vancouver, Canada.

Lacy_Brian_FL_web.jpg

Tenapanor acts as an inhibitor of the sodium-hydrogen exchanger 3 (NHE3) and works to reduce dietary sodium absorption, which, in turn, leads to retention of fluid in the intestinal lumen, resulting in softer stool and accelerated intestinal transit, he explained.

Tenapanor is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults with IBS-C.

The major goal of the analysis presented at ACG was to identify times to responses for individual symptoms, said Dr. Lacy in an email exchange with GI & Hepatology News.

Prior studies focused on global improvement in IBS-C symptoms using the FDA-approved definition of a responder: A patient who experienced at least a 30% reduction in the weekly average abdominal pain score and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) in the same week for at least 6 of the first 12 treatment weeks.

“Thus, we thought it important to pool all of the data together for this post-hoc analysis, as clinicians and patients often wonder when an individual symptom will respond,” Dr. Lacy wrote in an email.

Dr. Lacy and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 2b (NCT01923428) and phase 3 T3MPO-1 (NCT02621892) and T3MPO-2 (NCT02686138) studies to evaluate time to onset of tenapanor effect on bowel function and on individual and global abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C.

This resulted in a pooled population of 1372 intent-to-treat patients (688 placebo, 684 on the study drug), with demographics generally similar across the studies, they said.

They found that the median time to CSBM was 2 weeks, with an estimated response probability of 52.3% by week 2, 72.5% by week 8, and 76.7% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal pain response was 4 weeks; the estimated response probability was 54.6% by week 4, 67.9% by week 8, and 72.3% by week 12.

The median time to abdominal bloating response was 5 weeks; the estimated response probability was 48.1% by week 4, 61.9% by week 8, and 67.7% by week 12.

“The teaching message to patients and providers is not to give up too early; staying on this medication allowed 25% more people to improve symptoms,” Dr. Lacy wrote.

In separate interviews, two other researchers Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, director of research for Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, and Brooks D. Cash, MD, AGAF, chief for gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, agreed with Dr. Lacy’s message.

Lembo_Anthony_J_BOSTON_web.jpg

The study will help in counseling patients who may need to wait a bit to see a response from tenapanor, Dr. Lembo said.

“You wish patients would get better right away of course,” he said, but there can be some delay, even in cases where a drug will ultimately work for a patient.

Patients want to know if they should continue and if it is worth getting another prescription for another month if they haven’t had a significant improvement response, Dr. Lembo said.

Both Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash said that it takes time for many drugs, not just these medications, to produce a noticeable effect for patients.

Still, “disorders of the gut-brain interaction likely do require a longer runway time to really assess their effects on multiple symptoms,” Dr. Cash said.

113455_Cash_Brooks_MOBILE_web.jpg

The tenapanor research presented at ACG will help in conveying that message to patients, Dr. Cash said.

“It also reinforces for clinicians not to be impatient,” he said.

Dr. Lacy and co-authors directed the development of the poster, and medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, and funded by Ardelyx. Dr. Lacy has financial and consulting relationships with AbbVie, Ardelyx, Gernelli, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix, and Sanofi, Co-authors are employees of Ardelyx. Dr. Lembo and Dr. Cash have financial relationships with Ardelyx and other makers of IBS drugs.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.