Kerry Dooley Young

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatrician Michelle Collins-Ogle, MD, already has a busy practice helping young people address questions about their gender identity. She has treated more than 230 patients over the past 2 years at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, New York.

Dr. Collins-Ogle specializes in adolescent medicine in New York, a state without the restrictions on such care that have been enacted in roughly half the country.

On December 13, 2023, Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning gender-affirming medical care to minors which Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed on December 29. Another 26 states have similar restrictions in place, according to a tally provided to this news organization by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks this issue.

Clinicians like Dr. Collins-Ogle are feeling the impact. In her practice, Dr. Collins-Ogle met a couple that moved from Texas to New York to allow their child to access gender-affirming medical care.

“They wanted their child to be able to receive medical care, but they also were afraid for their own safety, of having their child taken from them, and being locked up,” Dr. Collins-Ogle told this news organization. 

With patients have also come protestors and harassment. In fact, many physicians are reluctant to speak on this topic amid a recent spate of threats. Psychiatric News reported that conservative pundits and high-profile social media accounts have targeted physicians who provide gender-affirming medical care, spurring harassment campaigns against clinics in cities such as Akron, Boston, and Nashville. “The attackers asserted that the clinics were mutilating children and giving them ‘chemical castration drugs,’ among other claims,” the Psychiatric News reported.

This news organization contacted more than a half dozen organizations that provide gender-affirming care for adolescents and teens seeking interviews about the effects of these restrictions.

All but Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle turned down the request.

“If my kids are brave enough to come see me, I can’t cower,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

But Dr. Collins-Ogle emphasized she understands why many fellow physicians are concerned about speaking publicly about gender-affirming medical care. 
 

Dissenters Spread Misinformation and Threats

Recent years have seen increasing politicization of this issue, often due to inaccurate depictions of gender-affirming medical care circulating on social media. 

In 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the Children’s Hospital Association asked the Justice Department to investigate what they called “increasing threats of violence against physicians, hospitals, and families of children for providing and seeking evidence-based gender-affirming care.” 

The three organizations also called on X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok, and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to do more to address coordinated campaigns of disinformation. 

“We cannot stand by as threats of violence against our members and their patients proliferate with little consequence,” said Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, then AAP president in a statement. 
 

Medical Groups Defend Care to Prevent Suicide

The AAP, AMA, and other influential medical associations are banding together to fight new legal restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for teens and adolescents. (These briefs do not discuss surgeries typically available for adults.) 

Since 2022, these medical organizations have filed amicus briefs in cases challenging new restrictions put in place in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Other signers to the amicus briefs: 

• Academic Pediatric Association
• American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Family Physicians
• American Academy of Nursing
• GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• The American College of Physicians
• American Pediatric Society
• Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Inc.
• Endocrine Society
• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
• The Pediatric Endocrine Society, Societies for Pediatric Urology
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
• Society for Pediatric Research
• The Society of Pediatric Nurses
• World Professional Association for Transgender Health

In these amicus briefs, the medical groups argue that evidence-based guidelines support the use of medication in treating gender dysphoria. The amicus briefs in particular cite an Endocrine Society guideline and the standards of care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Research shows that adolescents with gender dysphoria who receive puberty blockers and other medications experience less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, the groups have said.

“In light of this evidence supporting the connection between lack of access to gender-affirming care and lifetime suicide risk, banning such care can put patients’ lives at risk,” the AAP and other groups said.
 

Debate Over Source of Gender Identity Concerns 

Having doubts and concerns about one’s gender remains a relatively rare phenomena, although it appears more common among younger people. 

Among US adults, 0.5% or about 1.3 million people identify as transgender whereas about 1.4% or about 300,000 people in the 13-17–year-old group do so, according to a report issued in 2022 by the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law. 
 

Questionable Diagnosis Drives Bans on Care

The term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” referring to young people who suddenly question their gender as part of peer group dynamics, persists in political debates. The conservative Heritage Foundation has used the term as well as “social contagion” in its effort to seek restrictions on gender-affirming care for young people. 

Ohio Rep. Gary Click, a Republican, said at an April 2023 hearing that his Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) bill would prevent teens from being harmed due to “social contagion” or “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” 

The bill, which the Ohio legislature cleared in December, would block physicians from starting new patients on puberty blockers. (It also bars surgeries as part of gender-affirming medical care, although hospital officials and physicians told lawmakers these are not done in Ohio.) 

Among the groups opposing Click’s bill were the Ohio chapter of the AAP, the Ohio State Medical Association and several hospitals and hospital groups as well as physicians speaking independently. 

Gender-Affirming Care ‘Buys Time’ to Avoid Impulsive Decisions

Kate Krueck, MD, a pediatrician with a practice in the Columbus area, testified about her experience as the mother of a transgender child who once attempted suicide. 

“It wasn’t always easy to reconstruct my vision of a baby with a vagina into the adolescent before me with a new name and changed pronouns, but they were still the same incredible person,” Krueck said. 

She urged lawmakers to understand how puberty blockers can “buy time” for teens to cope with a body at odds with their vision of themselves, noting that many of the effects of these medications are largely reversible. The side effects that are not reversible, such as facial hair growth and the growth of Adam’s Apple, are certainly outweighed by the risks of withholding treatment, she said. 
 

Bad Patient Experience Drives Detractor Activist

Arguing against that point was Chloe Cole, a detransitioner activist who had returned to a female identity. At the Ohio legislative hearings, Ms. Cole spoke of her experience in California as a teen treated for gender dysphoria.

“I was fast-tracked by medical butchers starting at 13 when I was given cross sex hormones, and they took my breasts away from me at 15 years old,” she said.

Ms. Cole appears frequently to testify in favor of bans on gender-affirming medical care. In 2022, she told the Ohio lawmakers about her experience of attending a class with about a dozen other young people in the midst of female-to-male transitions. She now sees that class as having inadvertently helped reinforce her decision to have her breasts removed.

“Despite all these consultations and classes, I don’t feel like I understood all the ramifications that came with any of the medical decisions I was making,” Ms. Cole said. “I didn’t realize how traumatic the recovery would be, and it wasn’t until I was almost a year post-op that I realized I may want to breastfeed my future children; I will never be able to do that.”

Ms. Cole also spoke in July before the US House subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

“I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster,” Ms. Cole said at the House hearing, which was titled “ The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.” 

During the hearing, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who also made a gender transition, thanked Ms. Cole but noted that her case is an exception.

A 2022 Lancet Child and Adolescent Health article reported that 704 (98%) people in the Netherlands who had started gender-affirming medical treatment in adolescence continued to use gender-affirming hormones at follow-up. Ms. Minter credits this high rate of continuation to clinicians taking their duties to adolescents seriously. 

State legislatures and medical boards oversee the regulation of medical practice in the US. But a few Republicans in both chambers of the US Congress have shown an interest in enacting a federal ban restricting physicians’ ability to provide gender-affirming medical care. 

They include Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who in October 2023 became Speaker of the House. He chaired the July hearing at which Ms. Cole spoke. He’s also a sponsor of a House bill introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). 

This measure, which has the support of 45 House Republicans, would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) introduced the companion Senate measure.
 

Reality of Gender-Affirming Care

The drive to pass laws like those in Ohio and Arkansas stem from a lack of knowledge about gender-affirming treatments, including a false idea that doctors prescribe medications at teens’ requests, Montefiore’s Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

“There’s a misperception that young people will say ‘I’m transgender’ and that those of us who provide care are just giving them hormones or whatever they want. It’s not true, and it doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Collins-Ogle said. 

At the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Dr. Collins-Ogle said her work with patients wrestling with gender identity issues begins with questions. 

“What’s your understanding of dysphoria? Where’s the incongruence between the gender you were assigned at birth and what you’re feeling now? You have to be able to verbalize that” before the treatment proceeds, she said. 

Sometimes teens leave after an initial conversation and then return later when they have a more clearly defined sense of what dysphoria means. 

“There are other kids who clearly, clearly understand that the gender they were assigned at birth is not who they are,” she said. 

Children now wrestle with added concerns that their parents could be put at risk for trying to help them, she said. 

“These kids go through so much. And we have these people in powerful positions telling them that they don’t matter and telling them, ‘We’re going to cut off your access to healthcare, Medicaid; if your parents tried to seek out this care for you, we’re going to put them in jail,’” she said. 

“It’s the biggest factor in fear mongering,” she said. 

Dr. Collins-Ogle said she wonders why legislators who lack medical training are trying to dictate how physicians can practice. 

“I took a Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I have a medical board that I answer to,” she said. “I don’t understand how legislators can get away with legislating about something they know nothing about.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

A meta-analysis appears to allay concerns that surgeons might be performing total knee arthroplasties (TKA) on healthier patients.

“Both the total number [of surgeons performing primary TKA] and the number of surgeons per capita have been generally increasing,” wrote Peter Dust, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “Reassuringly, however, our results suggest that despite the increasing number of surgeons, the indications for surgery are not being eroded by operating on healthier patients to fill operating room time.”

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Rising demand

In the paper, Dr. Dust and colleagues noted that there was a 162% increase in volume of total knee arthroplasties among people enrolled in the Medicare program between 1991 and 2010.

Unrelated to the study, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has reported similar trends. In 2018-2019, about 75,000 knee replacements were performed in Canada; an increase of 22.5% over the previous 5 years. The numbers dropped in 2020-2021 during the pandemic because of limited access to medical facilities during that time, but then rebounded between April and September 2022 to close to prepandemic numbers. However, about 50% of patients were waiting longer during that time than the recommended 6 months (182 days) for their surgery.
 

So, what’s happening?

The trends for rising numbers of knee surgeries cannot be fully explained by population growth and increasing rates of obesity, Dr. Dust and colleagues wrote. That led them to ask whether some patients were undergoing surgery with a higher level of preoperative function compared with the past.

They conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases with the aim of determining the effect of time, age, and sex on preoperative functional status. A total of 149 studies were ultimately included in the study, with data from 257 independent groups and 57,844 patients recruited from 1991 to 2015.

The analysis revealed that patients are undergoing TKA with a level of preoperative function similar to that in the past. Also, patient age, sex, and location did not influence the functional status at which patients were considered for surgery.

Jasvinder Singh, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not involved with the research, offered another suggestion to explain the trend: People today are more familiar with knee replacement surgery and thus find it a less daunting option.

“Everybody knows somebody who has had a knee done or a hip done,” Singh said in an interview.”People are a lot more familiar with these things than they were 30 years ago.”
 

Subjective criteria persists

In the paper, Dr. Dust said that he and his colleagues had hoped this study might reveal a target physical component summary (PCS) score, used to assess functional status, based on which patients could be considered for surgery. Their findings, however, did not enable such a recommendation to be made.

In an interview, Claudette M. Lajam, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), agreed that there does not appear to be a trend toward earlier intervention. Also, a precise number or score that can be used to determine when patients should undergo TKA still does not exist. Dr. Lajam is professor of orthopedic surgery and system chief for orthopedic quality and risk at NYU Langone Health, New York.

The “sweet spot time” for TKA is still not clear based on available metrics, Dr. Lajam said. Physicians need to consider not only patient level of function before surgery, but also when to intervene so they will get the most benefit from these procedures.

The knee has to be “bad enough to justify major surgery,” she said, while waiting too long might lead to inferior outcomes.

In time, she thinks artificial intelligence (AI) could help in identifying when primary care clinicians should advise patients to seek specialist care for ailing knees.

AI could allow physicians and researchers to search for clues about the best timing for surgery by combing through millions of x-rays, a variety of functional scores used in assessing patients, and other sources of information, she explained. At this time, the PCS used by Dr. Dust and colleagues is just one of many measures used to assess patient level of function. AI might be able to bring these data together for scientists to review.

“AI can see patterns that I can’t see right now,” Dr. Lajam said.

But she emphasized that any AI application would be an aid to physicians in counseling patients. Evaluation by an experienced surgeon, together with guidance from any AI tool, could provide a greater understanding of how TKA could help patients with arthritis of the knee.

“The physician sees intangibles that AI would not see because we actually talk to the patient,” she explained.

Dr. Dust said there was no outside funding for the study and the authors and Dr. Lajam reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Singh said he has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and institutional research support from Zimmer Biomet Holdings. He has received food and beverage payments from Intuitive Surgical Inc./Philips Electronics North America, and owns stock options in Atai Life Sciences. He is a member of the executive committee of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), an organization that receives arms-length funding from eight companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A meta-analysis appears to allay concerns that surgeons might be performing total knee arthroplasties (TKA) on healthier patients.

“Both the total number [of surgeons performing primary TKA] and the number of surgeons per capita have been generally increasing,” wrote Peter Dust, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “Reassuringly, however, our results suggest that despite the increasing number of surgeons, the indications for surgery are not being eroded by operating on healthier patients to fill operating room time.”

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Rising demand

In the paper, Dr. Dust and colleagues noted that there was a 162% increase in volume of total knee arthroplasties among people enrolled in the Medicare program between 1991 and 2010.

Unrelated to the study, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has reported similar trends. In 2018-2019, about 75,000 knee replacements were performed in Canada; an increase of 22.5% over the previous 5 years. The numbers dropped in 2020-2021 during the pandemic because of limited access to medical facilities during that time, but then rebounded between April and September 2022 to close to prepandemic numbers. However, about 50% of patients were waiting longer during that time than the recommended 6 months (182 days) for their surgery.
 

So, what’s happening?

The trends for rising numbers of knee surgeries cannot be fully explained by population growth and increasing rates of obesity, Dr. Dust and colleagues wrote. That led them to ask whether some patients were undergoing surgery with a higher level of preoperative function compared with the past.

They conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases with the aim of determining the effect of time, age, and sex on preoperative functional status. A total of 149 studies were ultimately included in the study, with data from 257 independent groups and 57,844 patients recruited from 1991 to 2015.

The analysis revealed that patients are undergoing TKA with a level of preoperative function similar to that in the past. Also, patient age, sex, and location did not influence the functional status at which patients were considered for surgery.

Jasvinder Singh, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not involved with the research, offered another suggestion to explain the trend: People today are more familiar with knee replacement surgery and thus find it a less daunting option.

“Everybody knows somebody who has had a knee done or a hip done,” Singh said in an interview.”People are a lot more familiar with these things than they were 30 years ago.”
 

Subjective criteria persists

In the paper, Dr. Dust said that he and his colleagues had hoped this study might reveal a target physical component summary (PCS) score, used to assess functional status, based on which patients could be considered for surgery. Their findings, however, did not enable such a recommendation to be made.

In an interview, Claudette M. Lajam, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), agreed that there does not appear to be a trend toward earlier intervention. Also, a precise number or score that can be used to determine when patients should undergo TKA still does not exist. Dr. Lajam is professor of orthopedic surgery and system chief for orthopedic quality and risk at NYU Langone Health, New York.

The “sweet spot time” for TKA is still not clear based on available metrics, Dr. Lajam said. Physicians need to consider not only patient level of function before surgery, but also when to intervene so they will get the most benefit from these procedures.

The knee has to be “bad enough to justify major surgery,” she said, while waiting too long might lead to inferior outcomes.

In time, she thinks artificial intelligence (AI) could help in identifying when primary care clinicians should advise patients to seek specialist care for ailing knees.

AI could allow physicians and researchers to search for clues about the best timing for surgery by combing through millions of x-rays, a variety of functional scores used in assessing patients, and other sources of information, she explained. At this time, the PCS used by Dr. Dust and colleagues is just one of many measures used to assess patient level of function. AI might be able to bring these data together for scientists to review.

“AI can see patterns that I can’t see right now,” Dr. Lajam said.

But she emphasized that any AI application would be an aid to physicians in counseling patients. Evaluation by an experienced surgeon, together with guidance from any AI tool, could provide a greater understanding of how TKA could help patients with arthritis of the knee.

“The physician sees intangibles that AI would not see because we actually talk to the patient,” she explained.

Dr. Dust said there was no outside funding for the study and the authors and Dr. Lajam reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Singh said he has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and institutional research support from Zimmer Biomet Holdings. He has received food and beverage payments from Intuitive Surgical Inc./Philips Electronics North America, and owns stock options in Atai Life Sciences. He is a member of the executive committee of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), an organization that receives arms-length funding from eight companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A meta-analysis appears to allay concerns that surgeons might be performing total knee arthroplasties (TKA) on healthier patients.

“Both the total number [of surgeons performing primary TKA] and the number of surgeons per capita have been generally increasing,” wrote Peter Dust, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “Reassuringly, however, our results suggest that despite the increasing number of surgeons, the indications for surgery are not being eroded by operating on healthier patients to fill operating room time.”

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Surgery.
 

Rising demand

In the paper, Dr. Dust and colleagues noted that there was a 162% increase in volume of total knee arthroplasties among people enrolled in the Medicare program between 1991 and 2010.

Unrelated to the study, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has reported similar trends. In 2018-2019, about 75,000 knee replacements were performed in Canada; an increase of 22.5% over the previous 5 years. The numbers dropped in 2020-2021 during the pandemic because of limited access to medical facilities during that time, but then rebounded between April and September 2022 to close to prepandemic numbers. However, about 50% of patients were waiting longer during that time than the recommended 6 months (182 days) for their surgery.
 

So, what’s happening?

The trends for rising numbers of knee surgeries cannot be fully explained by population growth and increasing rates of obesity, Dr. Dust and colleagues wrote. That led them to ask whether some patients were undergoing surgery with a higher level of preoperative function compared with the past.

They conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases with the aim of determining the effect of time, age, and sex on preoperative functional status. A total of 149 studies were ultimately included in the study, with data from 257 independent groups and 57,844 patients recruited from 1991 to 2015.

The analysis revealed that patients are undergoing TKA with a level of preoperative function similar to that in the past. Also, patient age, sex, and location did not influence the functional status at which patients were considered for surgery.

Jasvinder Singh, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not involved with the research, offered another suggestion to explain the trend: People today are more familiar with knee replacement surgery and thus find it a less daunting option.

“Everybody knows somebody who has had a knee done or a hip done,” Singh said in an interview.”People are a lot more familiar with these things than they were 30 years ago.”
 

Subjective criteria persists

In the paper, Dr. Dust said that he and his colleagues had hoped this study might reveal a target physical component summary (PCS) score, used to assess functional status, based on which patients could be considered for surgery. Their findings, however, did not enable such a recommendation to be made.

In an interview, Claudette M. Lajam, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), agreed that there does not appear to be a trend toward earlier intervention. Also, a precise number or score that can be used to determine when patients should undergo TKA still does not exist. Dr. Lajam is professor of orthopedic surgery and system chief for orthopedic quality and risk at NYU Langone Health, New York.

The “sweet spot time” for TKA is still not clear based on available metrics, Dr. Lajam said. Physicians need to consider not only patient level of function before surgery, but also when to intervene so they will get the most benefit from these procedures.

The knee has to be “bad enough to justify major surgery,” she said, while waiting too long might lead to inferior outcomes.

In time, she thinks artificial intelligence (AI) could help in identifying when primary care clinicians should advise patients to seek specialist care for ailing knees.

AI could allow physicians and researchers to search for clues about the best timing for surgery by combing through millions of x-rays, a variety of functional scores used in assessing patients, and other sources of information, she explained. At this time, the PCS used by Dr. Dust and colleagues is just one of many measures used to assess patient level of function. AI might be able to bring these data together for scientists to review.

“AI can see patterns that I can’t see right now,” Dr. Lajam said.

But she emphasized that any AI application would be an aid to physicians in counseling patients. Evaluation by an experienced surgeon, together with guidance from any AI tool, could provide a greater understanding of how TKA could help patients with arthritis of the knee.

“The physician sees intangibles that AI would not see because we actually talk to the patient,” she explained.

Dr. Dust said there was no outside funding for the study and the authors and Dr. Lajam reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Singh said he has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and institutional research support from Zimmer Biomet Holdings. He has received food and beverage payments from Intuitive Surgical Inc./Philips Electronics North America, and owns stock options in Atai Life Sciences. He is a member of the executive committee of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), an organization that receives arms-length funding from eight companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

Physicians in 2024 can expect a 3.4% drop in the conversion factor that determines their base Medicare pay, according to federal officials, but they also will receive more money for primary care and treating complex conditions.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 2 released its 2024 final physician fee schedule, triggering renewed concerns from doctors’ groups, who protested CMS’ cuts when they were first previewed earlier in 2023.

The 2024 conversion factor, or base rate for clinician pay, will be $32.74, a decrease of $1.15, or 3.4%, from 2023’s level. The pay cuts come as costs of providing health care are expected to rise as much as 4.6% in 2024, the American Medical Association said.

The new rule follows a 2% payment reduction in 2023, AMA president Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, said in a statement.

“This is a recipe for financial instability,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “Patients and physicians will wonder why such thin gruel is being served.”

The AMA is among the many physician groups pressing Congress to change its approach to paying clinicians and consider inflation rates in determining future payments.

Medicare already includes automatic inflation adjusters in other payment rules, such as the ones for care provided in hospitals. But Congress in 2015 eliminated this feature for the physician fee schedule when it passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act.

A pending House bill, the bipartisan Strengthening Medicare for Patients and Providers Act (H.R.2474), would return to permanently including a broader inflation adjuster in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

“This long-overdue change would not only help provide greater stability within the Medicare payment system, but it would also help physicians’ practices – many of whom operate as small business owners – more effectively navigate the ever-changing economic factors that impact their practices, including rising medical costs, workforce and labor challenges, administrative burdens, office rental prices and more,” Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.), Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, MD (R-Iowa), wrote in an opinion article in the newspaper The Hill.

Major changes to determining Medicare physician pay remain unlikely in 2023. Still, Congress has softened or blocked slated cuts in physician pay in recent years, passing temporary “doc fixes” as add-ons to spending packages.
 

E/M add-on payment

“We’re encouraged to see that CMS listened to our concerns and extended telehealth flexibilities as well as implemented the G2211 code, which will help Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians better manage complex and chronic rheumatic diseases,” said Douglas White, MD, PhD, president of the ACR.

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

A study presented this week in Vancouver at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting suggests that all patients with inflammatory bowel disease, regardless of age, may be at increased risk for contracting a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection and, as such, may benefit from receiving an RSV vaccine.

RSV has historically been recognized in young and elderly populations and in patients who have received organ transplants. In fact, there is a body of literature that highlights the morbidity and mortality impact on immunocompromised organ transplant patients, but there is little research on the impact of RSV on patients with IBD.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly those with comorbidities, an RSV infection can turn serious, said Ryan Smith, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who presented the study at the meeting.

“These patients are known to be at increased risk for infections, especially respiratory infections, with diseases such as influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia, and PJP (pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia) being big risks,” he said during his presentation.

The Smith et al. study was a retrospective cohort study using data from the global TriNetX research network. It included an IBD cohort of 206,475 patients and a control cohort of 4.2 million patients without IBD.

Researchers found higher rates of RSV diagnoses in IBD cohorts across age groups (P <.0001 for all groups), but also when comorbidities were present. Patients with IBD who were being treated with immunomodulators or anti-TNF therapy were at increased risk for infection, but not just any infection – serious infections, Dr. Smith said.

“This risk [in general] seems to exist across all age groups from our youngest to our elderly populations And, this risk increases for our patients with underlying comorbidities in our inflammatory bowel disease group,” he said.

Among patients 18 and younger, 0.36% of the IBD cohort were at increased risk of RSV infection, compared with 0.16% of the control group. Among those 18-49 years old, the risk was 0.26% of the IBD cohort and 0.15% of the control group. Among patients older than 65 years, the risk was 0.55% for patients with IBD, compared with 0.24% of the control group.

In terms of hospitalizations, 47.3% of the patients 18 years old and younger were hospitalized, compared with 39.7% of the control group. For those 65 years and older, 56.4% of the IBD cohort were hospitalized, compared with 47.3% of the control group. The mortality rate in the IBD cohort was 4.7%.
 

New RSV vaccines approved this year

RSV is relatively common in the United States and accounts for approximately 1.4 million outpatient visits each year, but health care officials are concerned that number will rise this year as the 2023-2024 RSV season gets underway. In September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement saying there has already been an increase in RSV activity in the southeastern part of the United States.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved Arexvy (GSK) for the prevention of RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease for use in adults ages 60 years and older. Also approved in May was Abrysvo (Pfizer) for pregnant women to prevent RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) and severe LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults 60 years or older receive a single dose of RSV vaccine “using shared clinical decision-making and prioritizing those at highest risk for severe disease.” It also recommendeds a new immunization starting this fall to help protect all infants under 8 months and babies between 8 and 19 months who are at increased risk of severe RSV disease.

Patients who are eligible for the RSV vaccination should get it, said Freddy Caldera, DO, a physician-scientist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and lead author of the IBD study presented at ACG. The study is intended to help clinicians who treat patients with IBD address questions from patients about the recently introduced RSV vaccines.

At this point, Dr. Caldera said, there is not enough evidence to say all adults with IBD should get RSV vaccinations. More work needs to be done to address this question, such as a replication of the findings of the work presented at ACG, he said. And in many cases too, insurers may not cover the RSV vaccine. In regards to other patients, the data presented at ACG can be part of a larger conversation between clinicians and patients.

Fielding questions from patients

In an interview, Jessica Philpott, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, described the study findings as an important attempt to understand the risk for RSV among patients with IBD.

Dr. Philpott said she is already getting questions from her patients about RSV vaccinations. Many patients with IBD are immunocompromised and thus have been interested in following up after learning about the new RSV vaccinations, especially after seeing news reports about rising cases, she said. “Certainly, every week I receive messages about the RSV vaccine” from patients, she said.

Dr. Philpott also said it’s too early to make blanket recommendations about RSV vaccinations for adults with IBS, as it is going to take some time to understand how these products work for these patients, she said.

But people with IBD know they already may be at high risk and will factor that in as they weigh whether to seek RSV vaccination, especially given its low risk for side effects, Dr. Philpott said. Patients with IBD who would not have insurance coverage for the vaccine may consider taking it anyway, she said.

“We would advocate to get this covered by their insurance because we have this data that shows they’re at greater risks than the average population,” she said.

This study received no outside funding. Dr. Smith indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caldera has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Francis Farraye has served on a GSK advisory committee.
 

A study presented this week in Vancouver at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting suggests that all patients with inflammatory bowel disease, regardless of age, may be at increased risk for contracting a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection and, as such, may benefit from receiving an RSV vaccine.

RSV has historically been recognized in young and elderly populations and in patients who have received organ transplants. In fact, there is a body of literature that highlights the morbidity and mortality impact on immunocompromised organ transplant patients, but there is little research on the impact of RSV on patients with IBD.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly those with comorbidities, an RSV infection can turn serious, said Ryan Smith, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who presented the study at the meeting.

“These patients are known to be at increased risk for infections, especially respiratory infections, with diseases such as influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia, and PJP (pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia) being big risks,” he said during his presentation.

The Smith et al. study was a retrospective cohort study using data from the global TriNetX research network. It included an IBD cohort of 206,475 patients and a control cohort of 4.2 million patients without IBD.

Researchers found higher rates of RSV diagnoses in IBD cohorts across age groups (P <.0001 for all groups), but also when comorbidities were present. Patients with IBD who were being treated with immunomodulators or anti-TNF therapy were at increased risk for infection, but not just any infection – serious infections, Dr. Smith said.

“This risk [in general] seems to exist across all age groups from our youngest to our elderly populations And, this risk increases for our patients with underlying comorbidities in our inflammatory bowel disease group,” he said.

Among patients 18 and younger, 0.36% of the IBD cohort were at increased risk of RSV infection, compared with 0.16% of the control group. Among those 18-49 years old, the risk was 0.26% of the IBD cohort and 0.15% of the control group. Among patients older than 65 years, the risk was 0.55% for patients with IBD, compared with 0.24% of the control group.

In terms of hospitalizations, 47.3% of the patients 18 years old and younger were hospitalized, compared with 39.7% of the control group. For those 65 years and older, 56.4% of the IBD cohort were hospitalized, compared with 47.3% of the control group. The mortality rate in the IBD cohort was 4.7%.
 

New RSV vaccines approved this year

RSV is relatively common in the United States and accounts for approximately 1.4 million outpatient visits each year, but health care officials are concerned that number will rise this year as the 2023-2024 RSV season gets underway. In September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement saying there has already been an increase in RSV activity in the southeastern part of the United States.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved Arexvy (GSK) for the prevention of RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease for use in adults ages 60 years and older. Also approved in May was Abrysvo (Pfizer) for pregnant women to prevent RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) and severe LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults 60 years or older receive a single dose of RSV vaccine “using shared clinical decision-making and prioritizing those at highest risk for severe disease.” It also recommendeds a new immunization starting this fall to help protect all infants under 8 months and babies between 8 and 19 months who are at increased risk of severe RSV disease.

Patients who are eligible for the RSV vaccination should get it, said Freddy Caldera, DO, a physician-scientist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and lead author of the IBD study presented at ACG. The study is intended to help clinicians who treat patients with IBD address questions from patients about the recently introduced RSV vaccines.

At this point, Dr. Caldera said, there is not enough evidence to say all adults with IBD should get RSV vaccinations. More work needs to be done to address this question, such as a replication of the findings of the work presented at ACG, he said. And in many cases too, insurers may not cover the RSV vaccine. In regards to other patients, the data presented at ACG can be part of a larger conversation between clinicians and patients.

Fielding questions from patients

In an interview, Jessica Philpott, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, described the study findings as an important attempt to understand the risk for RSV among patients with IBD.

Dr. Philpott said she is already getting questions from her patients about RSV vaccinations. Many patients with IBD are immunocompromised and thus have been interested in following up after learning about the new RSV vaccinations, especially after seeing news reports about rising cases, she said. “Certainly, every week I receive messages about the RSV vaccine” from patients, she said.

Dr. Philpott also said it’s too early to make blanket recommendations about RSV vaccinations for adults with IBS, as it is going to take some time to understand how these products work for these patients, she said.

But people with IBD know they already may be at high risk and will factor that in as they weigh whether to seek RSV vaccination, especially given its low risk for side effects, Dr. Philpott said. Patients with IBD who would not have insurance coverage for the vaccine may consider taking it anyway, she said.

“We would advocate to get this covered by their insurance because we have this data that shows they’re at greater risks than the average population,” she said.

This study received no outside funding. Dr. Smith indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caldera has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Francis Farraye has served on a GSK advisory committee.
 

A study presented this week in Vancouver at the ACG: American College of Gastroenterology annual meeting suggests that all patients with inflammatory bowel disease, regardless of age, may be at increased risk for contracting a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection and, as such, may benefit from receiving an RSV vaccine.

RSV has historically been recognized in young and elderly populations and in patients who have received organ transplants. In fact, there is a body of literature that highlights the morbidity and mortality impact on immunocompromised organ transplant patients, but there is little research on the impact of RSV on patients with IBD.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly those with comorbidities, an RSV infection can turn serious, said Ryan Smith, MD, a gastroenterology and hepatology fellow with the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who presented the study at the meeting.

“These patients are known to be at increased risk for infections, especially respiratory infections, with diseases such as influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia, and PJP (pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia) being big risks,” he said during his presentation.

The Smith et al. study was a retrospective cohort study using data from the global TriNetX research network. It included an IBD cohort of 206,475 patients and a control cohort of 4.2 million patients without IBD.

Researchers found higher rates of RSV diagnoses in IBD cohorts across age groups (P <.0001 for all groups), but also when comorbidities were present. Patients with IBD who were being treated with immunomodulators or anti-TNF therapy were at increased risk for infection, but not just any infection – serious infections, Dr. Smith said.

“This risk [in general] seems to exist across all age groups from our youngest to our elderly populations And, this risk increases for our patients with underlying comorbidities in our inflammatory bowel disease group,” he said.

Among patients 18 and younger, 0.36% of the IBD cohort were at increased risk of RSV infection, compared with 0.16% of the control group. Among those 18-49 years old, the risk was 0.26% of the IBD cohort and 0.15% of the control group. Among patients older than 65 years, the risk was 0.55% for patients with IBD, compared with 0.24% of the control group.

In terms of hospitalizations, 47.3% of the patients 18 years old and younger were hospitalized, compared with 39.7% of the control group. For those 65 years and older, 56.4% of the IBD cohort were hospitalized, compared with 47.3% of the control group. The mortality rate in the IBD cohort was 4.7%.
 

New RSV vaccines approved this year

RSV is relatively common in the United States and accounts for approximately 1.4 million outpatient visits each year, but health care officials are concerned that number will rise this year as the 2023-2024 RSV season gets underway. In September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a statement saying there has already been an increase in RSV activity in the southeastern part of the United States.

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved Arexvy (GSK) for the prevention of RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease for use in adults ages 60 years and older. Also approved in May was Abrysvo (Pfizer) for pregnant women to prevent RSV-related lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) and severe LRTD in infants from birth through 6 months of age.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults 60 years or older receive a single dose of RSV vaccine “using shared clinical decision-making and prioritizing those at highest risk for severe disease.” It also recommendeds a new immunization starting this fall to help protect all infants under 8 months and babies between 8 and 19 months who are at increased risk of severe RSV disease.

Patients who are eligible for the RSV vaccination should get it, said Freddy Caldera, DO, a physician-scientist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and lead author of the IBD study presented at ACG. The study is intended to help clinicians who treat patients with IBD address questions from patients about the recently introduced RSV vaccines.

At this point, Dr. Caldera said, there is not enough evidence to say all adults with IBD should get RSV vaccinations. More work needs to be done to address this question, such as a replication of the findings of the work presented at ACG, he said. And in many cases too, insurers may not cover the RSV vaccine. In regards to other patients, the data presented at ACG can be part of a larger conversation between clinicians and patients.

Fielding questions from patients

In an interview, Jessica Philpott, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Cleveland Clinic, described the study findings as an important attempt to understand the risk for RSV among patients with IBD.

Dr. Philpott said she is already getting questions from her patients about RSV vaccinations. Many patients with IBD are immunocompromised and thus have been interested in following up after learning about the new RSV vaccinations, especially after seeing news reports about rising cases, she said. “Certainly, every week I receive messages about the RSV vaccine” from patients, she said.

Dr. Philpott also said it’s too early to make blanket recommendations about RSV vaccinations for adults with IBS, as it is going to take some time to understand how these products work for these patients, she said.

But people with IBD know they already may be at high risk and will factor that in as they weigh whether to seek RSV vaccination, especially given its low risk for side effects, Dr. Philpott said. Patients with IBD who would not have insurance coverage for the vaccine may consider taking it anyway, she said.

“We would advocate to get this covered by their insurance because we have this data that shows they’re at greater risks than the average population,” she said.

This study received no outside funding. Dr. Smith indicated no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caldera has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Francis Farraye has served on a GSK advisory committee.
 

Researchers reporting in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology have identified a higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among adults who consumed a diet rich in ultra-processed foods, suggesting another field for inquiry about the potential role of industrial-produced edible food products in IBD.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of four studies, found a 47% greater risk of IBD in adults who consumed high levels of ultra-processed foods, compared with adults in reference groups.

“Our data are also consistent with other observational studies that found increased consumption of junk food, along with reduced intakes of fresh fruit and vegetables, are associated with the development of IBD. Because Americans consume over 60% of their calories in the form of ultra-processed foods, reductions in this level of consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD,” wrote authors who were led by Eric Hecht, MD, PhD, MPH, president and executive director of the nonprofit Institute of Etiological Research, Boca Raton, Fla.

The potential effect of poor diet on the gut is a critical public health question, he said. Diet may be just one possible contributor to inflammatory bowel disease. Other contributors include genetics and having a compromised immune system.

Dr. Hecht and colleagues began this study with a search on the PubMed database of published research on IBD that included details of diet. Of 10 relevant studies, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.

The four studies included 652,880 adults, 2,240 cases of IBD with a follow-up period ranging from 2.3 to 22.3 years. Statistically significant elevated risks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis were documented in the studies. There was a relative risk of 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.66) for IBD; 1.94 (95% CI, 1.45-2.58) for Crohn’s disease, and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.10-1.45) for ulcerative colitis.

Findings from the 4 studies

Chen et al. reported, in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, the results of a cross-sectional and prospective cohort study of 187,854 adults who were followed for an average of 10 years. They found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with a higher incidence of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis. It also found that people who were already diagnosed with an IBD consumed more ultra-processed foods than did those without a diagnosis. The authors called for further studies to address the impact of UPF intake.

Vasseur et al. documented, in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, research drawn from the NutriNet-Santé Study, a large French web-based prospective study. It did not find that ultra-processed foods were significantly associated with the risk of incident IBD. But the authors noted that certain types of food items or dietary patterns could partly explain the increase in the incidence of IBD observed in several countries, saying that further large-scale studies would be needed to support pathophysiological assumptions made about the dietary risk factors and IBD.

In September 2020 in Gastroenterology, Lo et al. used data from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014), Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2015), and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012). The authors reported finding dietary patterns associated with high inflammatory potential to be associated with increased risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.

In October 2021 in Gastroenterology, Narula et al. reported finding no significant association between certain dietary patterns and risk of ulcerative colitis. There was some signal for Crohn’s disease, in keeping with findings from earlier research. Longer term follow-up is needed to clarify whether the observed excess risk for Crohn’s disease becomes more evident as more cases accumulate.

However, in an email interview with GI & Hepatology News, Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., cited two of his other published works that did make a connection between diet and IBD. In July 2021 in BMJ, he and colleagues reported findings of a prospective cohort study that found that higher intake of ultra-processed food was positively associated with risk of IBD. Further studies are needed to identify the contributory factors within ultra-processed foods, they wrote. He and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 5 cohort studies which concluded that higher ultra-processed food and lower unprocessed/minimally processed food intakes were associated with higher risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.
 

Study limitations

Aviva Musicus, ScD, the science director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said the Dr. Hecht et al. meta-analysis suggests there could be a signal in the association between higher ultra-processed food consumption and IBD, but there’s also a lot of “noise” in this presentation.

It’s not clear from these analyses presented what might be driving the relationship between IBD and ultra-processed food, she said. “Is it the nutrient content of these foods, given that many are high in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in dietary fiber (potential risk factors for IBD)? Is it the emulsifiers used in some of these foods, or other chemicals added during processing? Or, is it something else?” Dr. Musicus said.

She said further studies are needed on the issue of ultra-processed food and IBD.

“I wasn’t convinced by the conclusion of this research abstract. It’s not clear to me that general reductions in UPF (ultra-processed foods) consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD, given that it may be a subset of these (somewhat heterogeneous) foods driving the associations, and people may not reduce their consumption of that specific subset upon hearing this news,” Dr. Musicus said.

“However, we already know that consumers can reduce chronic disease risk by eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes (good sources of dietary fiber) and limiting consumption of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat,” she added.

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the need for further study. There are limitations with the methodology used in the research from Dr. Hecht and colleagues, he said.

“Meta-analyses aren’t perfect and I think we all acknowledge that,” he said, adding that the Hecht poster provides “a larger perspective on the topic.”

There’s widespread agreement that ultraprocessed foods are not healthy, raising heart and cancer risks, he said. In counseling his patients, Dr. Regueiro said he acknowledges the challenges many people face in trying to pursue a healthier diet. Ultraprocessed foods tend to be cheap and readily available, and many people need help in spotting them, such as learning to look at labels for unfamiliar terms.

“What I tell my own patients in the clinic is to really try to clean up the diet as much as possible and in a realistic way,” he said.

The authors of the ACG poster did not report any financial conflicts. Dr. Hecht said he founded the Institute for Etiological Research to pursue questions about public health. Its funders include the Bertarelli Foundation.

Researchers reporting in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology have identified a higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among adults who consumed a diet rich in ultra-processed foods, suggesting another field for inquiry about the potential role of industrial-produced edible food products in IBD.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of four studies, found a 47% greater risk of IBD in adults who consumed high levels of ultra-processed foods, compared with adults in reference groups.

“Our data are also consistent with other observational studies that found increased consumption of junk food, along with reduced intakes of fresh fruit and vegetables, are associated with the development of IBD. Because Americans consume over 60% of their calories in the form of ultra-processed foods, reductions in this level of consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD,” wrote authors who were led by Eric Hecht, MD, PhD, MPH, president and executive director of the nonprofit Institute of Etiological Research, Boca Raton, Fla.

The potential effect of poor diet on the gut is a critical public health question, he said. Diet may be just one possible contributor to inflammatory bowel disease. Other contributors include genetics and having a compromised immune system.

Dr. Hecht and colleagues began this study with a search on the PubMed database of published research on IBD that included details of diet. Of 10 relevant studies, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.

The four studies included 652,880 adults, 2,240 cases of IBD with a follow-up period ranging from 2.3 to 22.3 years. Statistically significant elevated risks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis were documented in the studies. There was a relative risk of 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.66) for IBD; 1.94 (95% CI, 1.45-2.58) for Crohn’s disease, and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.10-1.45) for ulcerative colitis.

Findings from the 4 studies

Chen et al. reported, in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, the results of a cross-sectional and prospective cohort study of 187,854 adults who were followed for an average of 10 years. They found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with a higher incidence of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis. It also found that people who were already diagnosed with an IBD consumed more ultra-processed foods than did those without a diagnosis. The authors called for further studies to address the impact of UPF intake.

Vasseur et al. documented, in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, research drawn from the NutriNet-Santé Study, a large French web-based prospective study. It did not find that ultra-processed foods were significantly associated with the risk of incident IBD. But the authors noted that certain types of food items or dietary patterns could partly explain the increase in the incidence of IBD observed in several countries, saying that further large-scale studies would be needed to support pathophysiological assumptions made about the dietary risk factors and IBD.

In September 2020 in Gastroenterology, Lo et al. used data from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014), Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2015), and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012). The authors reported finding dietary patterns associated with high inflammatory potential to be associated with increased risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.

In October 2021 in Gastroenterology, Narula et al. reported finding no significant association between certain dietary patterns and risk of ulcerative colitis. There was some signal for Crohn’s disease, in keeping with findings from earlier research. Longer term follow-up is needed to clarify whether the observed excess risk for Crohn’s disease becomes more evident as more cases accumulate.

However, in an email interview with GI & Hepatology News, Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., cited two of his other published works that did make a connection between diet and IBD. In July 2021 in BMJ, he and colleagues reported findings of a prospective cohort study that found that higher intake of ultra-processed food was positively associated with risk of IBD. Further studies are needed to identify the contributory factors within ultra-processed foods, they wrote. He and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 5 cohort studies which concluded that higher ultra-processed food and lower unprocessed/minimally processed food intakes were associated with higher risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.
 

Study limitations

Aviva Musicus, ScD, the science director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said the Dr. Hecht et al. meta-analysis suggests there could be a signal in the association between higher ultra-processed food consumption and IBD, but there’s also a lot of “noise” in this presentation.

It’s not clear from these analyses presented what might be driving the relationship between IBD and ultra-processed food, she said. “Is it the nutrient content of these foods, given that many are high in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in dietary fiber (potential risk factors for IBD)? Is it the emulsifiers used in some of these foods, or other chemicals added during processing? Or, is it something else?” Dr. Musicus said.

She said further studies are needed on the issue of ultra-processed food and IBD.

“I wasn’t convinced by the conclusion of this research abstract. It’s not clear to me that general reductions in UPF (ultra-processed foods) consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD, given that it may be a subset of these (somewhat heterogeneous) foods driving the associations, and people may not reduce their consumption of that specific subset upon hearing this news,” Dr. Musicus said.

“However, we already know that consumers can reduce chronic disease risk by eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes (good sources of dietary fiber) and limiting consumption of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat,” she added.

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the need for further study. There are limitations with the methodology used in the research from Dr. Hecht and colleagues, he said.

“Meta-analyses aren’t perfect and I think we all acknowledge that,” he said, adding that the Hecht poster provides “a larger perspective on the topic.”

There’s widespread agreement that ultraprocessed foods are not healthy, raising heart and cancer risks, he said. In counseling his patients, Dr. Regueiro said he acknowledges the challenges many people face in trying to pursue a healthier diet. Ultraprocessed foods tend to be cheap and readily available, and many people need help in spotting them, such as learning to look at labels for unfamiliar terms.

“What I tell my own patients in the clinic is to really try to clean up the diet as much as possible and in a realistic way,” he said.

The authors of the ACG poster did not report any financial conflicts. Dr. Hecht said he founded the Institute for Etiological Research to pursue questions about public health. Its funders include the Bertarelli Foundation.

Researchers reporting in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology have identified a higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among adults who consumed a diet rich in ultra-processed foods, suggesting another field for inquiry about the potential role of industrial-produced edible food products in IBD.

The study, which was a meta-analysis of four studies, found a 47% greater risk of IBD in adults who consumed high levels of ultra-processed foods, compared with adults in reference groups.

“Our data are also consistent with other observational studies that found increased consumption of junk food, along with reduced intakes of fresh fruit and vegetables, are associated with the development of IBD. Because Americans consume over 60% of their calories in the form of ultra-processed foods, reductions in this level of consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD,” wrote authors who were led by Eric Hecht, MD, PhD, MPH, president and executive director of the nonprofit Institute of Etiological Research, Boca Raton, Fla.

The potential effect of poor diet on the gut is a critical public health question, he said. Diet may be just one possible contributor to inflammatory bowel disease. Other contributors include genetics and having a compromised immune system.

Dr. Hecht and colleagues began this study with a search on the PubMed database of published research on IBD that included details of diet. Of 10 relevant studies, 4 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis.

The four studies included 652,880 adults, 2,240 cases of IBD with a follow-up period ranging from 2.3 to 22.3 years. Statistically significant elevated risks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis were documented in the studies. There was a relative risk of 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.66) for IBD; 1.94 (95% CI, 1.45-2.58) for Crohn’s disease, and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.10-1.45) for ulcerative colitis.

Findings from the 4 studies

Chen et al. reported, in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, the results of a cross-sectional and prospective cohort study of 187,854 adults who were followed for an average of 10 years. They found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with a higher incidence of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis. It also found that people who were already diagnosed with an IBD consumed more ultra-processed foods than did those without a diagnosis. The authors called for further studies to address the impact of UPF intake.

Vasseur et al. documented, in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, research drawn from the NutriNet-Santé Study, a large French web-based prospective study. It did not find that ultra-processed foods were significantly associated with the risk of incident IBD. But the authors noted that certain types of food items or dietary patterns could partly explain the increase in the incidence of IBD observed in several countries, saying that further large-scale studies would be needed to support pathophysiological assumptions made about the dietary risk factors and IBD.

In September 2020 in Gastroenterology, Lo et al. used data from the Nurses’ Health Study (1984-2014), Nurses’ Health Study II (1991-2015), and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2012). The authors reported finding dietary patterns associated with high inflammatory potential to be associated with increased risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.

In October 2021 in Gastroenterology, Narula et al. reported finding no significant association between certain dietary patterns and risk of ulcerative colitis. There was some signal for Crohn’s disease, in keeping with findings from earlier research. Longer term follow-up is needed to clarify whether the observed excess risk for Crohn’s disease becomes more evident as more cases accumulate.

However, in an email interview with GI & Hepatology News, Neeraj Narula, MD, MPH, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., cited two of his other published works that did make a connection between diet and IBD. In July 2021 in BMJ, he and colleagues reported findings of a prospective cohort study that found that higher intake of ultra-processed food was positively associated with risk of IBD. Further studies are needed to identify the contributory factors within ultra-processed foods, they wrote. He and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 5 cohort studies which concluded that higher ultra-processed food and lower unprocessed/minimally processed food intakes were associated with higher risk of Crohn’s disease but not ulcerative colitis.
 

Study limitations

Aviva Musicus, ScD, the science director for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said the Dr. Hecht et al. meta-analysis suggests there could be a signal in the association between higher ultra-processed food consumption and IBD, but there’s also a lot of “noise” in this presentation.

It’s not clear from these analyses presented what might be driving the relationship between IBD and ultra-processed food, she said. “Is it the nutrient content of these foods, given that many are high in added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in dietary fiber (potential risk factors for IBD)? Is it the emulsifiers used in some of these foods, or other chemicals added during processing? Or, is it something else?” Dr. Musicus said.

She said further studies are needed on the issue of ultra-processed food and IBD.

“I wasn’t convinced by the conclusion of this research abstract. It’s not clear to me that general reductions in UPF (ultra-processed foods) consumption could meaningfully decrease the incidence of IBD, given that it may be a subset of these (somewhat heterogeneous) foods driving the associations, and people may not reduce their consumption of that specific subset upon hearing this news,” Dr. Musicus said.

“However, we already know that consumers can reduce chronic disease risk by eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes (good sources of dietary fiber) and limiting consumption of added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat,” she added.

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the need for further study. There are limitations with the methodology used in the research from Dr. Hecht and colleagues, he said.

“Meta-analyses aren’t perfect and I think we all acknowledge that,” he said, adding that the Hecht poster provides “a larger perspective on the topic.”

There’s widespread agreement that ultraprocessed foods are not healthy, raising heart and cancer risks, he said. In counseling his patients, Dr. Regueiro said he acknowledges the challenges many people face in trying to pursue a healthier diet. Ultraprocessed foods tend to be cheap and readily available, and many people need help in spotting them, such as learning to look at labels for unfamiliar terms.

“What I tell my own patients in the clinic is to really try to clean up the diet as much as possible and in a realistic way,” he said.

The authors of the ACG poster did not report any financial conflicts. Dr. Hecht said he founded the Institute for Etiological Research to pursue questions about public health. Its funders include the Bertarelli Foundation.

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Some physicians are frustrated that key information about implantable medical devices rarely makes it into electronic health records, despite a 10-year mandate on manufacturers to label these products with identifiers.

As a result of this siloing of information, patients are not getting the expected benefits of a regulation finalized over a decade ago by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In 2013, the agency ordered companies to include unique device identifiers (UDIs) in plain-text and barcode format on some device labels, starting with implanted devices that are considered life-sustaining. The FDA said that tracking of UDI information would speed detection of complications linked to devices.

But identifiers are rarely on devices. At the time of the regulation creation, the FDA also said it expected this data would be integrated into EHRs. But only a few pioneer organizations such as Duke University and Mercy Health have so far attempted to track any UDI data in an organized way, researchers say.

Richard J. Kovacs, MD, the chief medical officer of the American College of Cardiology, contrasted the lack of useful implementation of UDI data with the speedy transfers of information that happen routinely in other industries. For example, employees of car rental agencies use handheld devices to gather detailed information about the vehicles being returned.

“But if you go to an emergency room with a medical device in your body, no one knows what it is or where it came from or anything about it,” Dr. Kovacs said in an interview.

Many physicians with expertise in device research have pushed for years to have insurers like Medicare require identification information on medical claims.

Even researchers face multiple obstacles in trying to investigate how well UDIs have been incorporated into EHRs and outcomes tied to certain devices.

In August, a Harvard team published a study in JAMA Internal Medicine, attempting to analyze the risks of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) devices. They reported an 11.6% risk for serious blood leaks with AFX Endovascular AAA System aneurysm devices, more than double the 5.7% risk estimated for competing products. The team selected EVAR devices for the study due in part to their known safety concerns. Endologix, the maker of the devices, declined to comment for this story.

The Harvard team used data from the Veterans Affairs health system, which is considered more well organized than most other health systems. But UDI information was found for only 19 of the 13,941 patients whose records were studied. In those cases, only partial information was included.

The researchers developed natural language processing tools, which they used to scrounge clinical notes for information about which devices patients received.

Using this method isn’t feasible for most clinicians, given that records from independent hospitals might not provide this kind of data and descriptions to search, according to the authors of an editorial accompanying the paper. Those researchers urged Congress to pass a law mandating inclusion of UDIs for all devices on claims forms as a condition for reimbursement by federal health care programs.

Setback for advocates

The movement toward UDI suffered a setback in June.

An influential, but little known federal advisory panel, the National Committee on Vital Health Statistics (NCVHS), opted to not recommend use of this information in claims, saying the FDA should consider the matter further.

Gaining an NCVHS recommendation would have been a win, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), and Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), in a December 2022 letter to the panel.

Including UDI data would let researchers track patients’ interactions with a health system and could be used to establish population-level correlations between a particular device and a long-term outcome or side effect, the lawmakers said.

That view had the support of at least one major maker of devices, Cook Group, which sells products for a variety of specialties, including cardiology.

In a comment to NCVHS, Cook urged for the inclusion identifiers in Medicare claims.

“While some have argued that the UDI is better suited for inclusion in the electronic health records, Cook believes this argument sets up a false choice between the two,” wrote Stephen L. Ferguson, JD, the chairman of Cook’s board. “Inclusion of the UDI in both electronic health records and claims forms will lead to a more robust system of real-world data.”

In contrast, AdvaMed, the trade group for device makers, told the NCVHS that it did not support adding the information to payment claims submissions, instead just supporting the inclusion in EHRs.

Dr. Kovacs of the ACC said one potential drawback to more transparency could be challenges in interpreting reports of complications in certain cases, at least initially. Reports about a flaw or even a suspected flaw in a device might lead patients to become concerned about their implanted devices, potentially registering unfounded complaints.

But this concern can be addressed through using “scientific rigor and safeguards” and is outweighed by the potential safety benefits for patients, Dr. Kovacs said.

Patients should ask health care systems to track and share information about their implanted devices, Dr. Kovacs suggested.

“I feel it would be my right to demand that that device information follows my electronic medical record, so that it’s readily available to anyone who’s taking care of me,” Dr. Kovacs said. “They would know what it is that’s in me, whether it’s a lens in my eye or a prosthesis in my hip or a highly complicated implantable cardiac electronic device.”

The Harvard study was supported by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. Authors of the study reported receiving fees from the FDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Authors of the editorial reported past and present connections with F-Prime Capital, FDA, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Arnold Ventures, as well being an expert witness at in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen. Authors of the Viewpoint reported past and present connections with the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), which is part of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC); AIM North America UDI Advisory Committee, Mass General Brigham, Arnold Ventures; the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum; Yale University, Johnson & Johnson, FD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; as well as having been an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against.

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

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Widely used billing codes have been updated for 2024, including new ones for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines and medications, and new Spanish translations.

The American Medical Association recently released the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 2024 Code Set. The update included 349 editorial changes, including 230 additions, 49 deletions, and 70 revisions. With more than 11,100 codes in use, the CPT system continues “to grow and evolve with the rapid pace of innovation in medical science and health technology,” AMA said.

The AMA said the CPT update includes five new codes created to report product-specific RSV products (90380, 90381, 90683, 90679, and 90678) for better tracking, reporting and analysis that supports data-driven planning and allocation, AMA said.

There’s been a flurry of new U.S. vaccines and drugs to address RSV. The Food and Drug Administration in May granted the first U.S. approval of an RSV vaccine to Arexy, manufactured by GSK. The FDA cleared it for prevention of lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in adults age 60 years and older.

In June, Pfizer won FDA approval of Abrysvo, another vaccine meant to protect adults older than 60 years from RSV. The following month, the FDA approved nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi), for the prevention of RSV in neonates and infants entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 24 months of age who remain vulnerable to severe RSV disease through their second RSV season. (This is not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. There has been confusion on this issue in part because monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.)

The FDA also has approved Abrysvo for use in pregnant individuals.

In addition, new CPT codes aim to streamline COVID-19 immunizations reporting. A new code (90480) was approved for reporting the administration of any COVID-19 vaccine for any patient. New provisional codes (91318-91322) will identify monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer for immunization against COVID-19.

These provisional codes will be effective for use when the monovalent vaccine products from Moderna and Pfizer receive FDA approval, AMA said.
 

More codes explained in Spanish

The 2024 update includes more code descriptions in Spanish. Many hospitals, health plans, and medical offices already incorporate CPT descriptors in English-language medical documents, insurance forms, price sheets, and patient portals. This expansion is intended to help patients who may not read English well or at all.

“Providing approximately 41 million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States with an easy-to-understand description of medical procedures and services can help build a more inclusive health care environment, where language is no longer a barrier and patients can actively engage in their own care,” Lori Prestesater, AMA’s senior vice president of health solutions, said in a statement.

In addition, the 2024 update includes clarifications sought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the reporting of evaluation and management (E/M) services. The revisions include:

• Removal of time ranges from office or other outpatient visit codes (99202-99205, 99212-99215) and format alignment with other E/M codes.
• Definition of the “substantive portion” of a split/shared E/M visit in which a physician and a nonphysician practitioner work jointly to furnish all the work related to the visit.
• Instructions for reporting hospital inpatient or observation care services and admission and discharge services for the use of codes. 99234-99236 when the patient stay crosses over two calendar dates.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.