User login
New USPSTF draft suggests mammography start at 40, not 50
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The major change: USPSTF proposed reducing the recommended start age for routine screening mammograms from age 50 to age 40. The latest recommendation, which carries a B grade, also calls for screening every other year and sets a cutoff age of 74.
The task force’s A and B ratings indicate strong confidence in the evidence for benefit, meaning that clinicians should encourage their patients to get these services as appropriate.
The influential federal advisory panel last updated these recommendations in 2016. At the time, USPSTF recommended routine screening mammograms starting at age 50, and gave a C grade to starting before that.
In the 2016 recommendations, “we felt a woman could start screening in her 40s depending on how she feels about the harms and benefits in an individualized personal decision,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, chief of clinical decision making and a primary care physician at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in an interview. “In this draft recommendation, we now recommend that all women get screened starting at age 40.”
Two major factors prompted the change, explained Dr. Wong. One is that more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s. The other is that a growing body of evidence showing that Black women get breast cancer younger, are more likely to die of breast cancer, and would benefit from earlier screening.
“It is now clear that screening every other year starting at age 40 has the potential to save about 20% more lives among all women and there is even greater potential benefit for Black women, who are much more likely to die from breast cancer,” Dr. Wong said.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) called the draft recommendations a “significant positive change,” while noting that the task force recommendations only apply to women at average risk for breast cancer.
The American College of Radiology (ACR) already recommends yearly mammograms for average risk women starting at age 40. Its latest guidelines on mammography call for women at higher-than-average risk for breast cancer to undergo a risk assessment by age 25 to determine if screening before age 40 is needed.
When asked about the differing views, Debra Monticciolo, MD, division chief for breast imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital, said annual screenings that follow ACR recommendations would save more lives than the every-other-year approach backed by the task force. Dr. Monticciolo also highlighted that the available scientific evidence supports earlier assessment as well as augmented and earlier-than-age-40 screening of many women – particularly Black women.
“These evidence-based updates should spur more-informed doctor–patient conversations and help providers save more lives,” Dr. Monticciolo said in a press release.
Insurance access
Typically, upgrading a USPSTF recommendation from C to B leads to better access and insurance coverage for patients. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 requires insurers to cover the cost of services that get A and B recommendations from the USPSTF without charging copays – a mandate intended to promote greater use for highly regarded services.
But Congress created a special workaround that effectively makes the ACA mandate apply to the 2002 task force recommendations on mammography. In those recommendations, the task force gave a B grade to screening mammograms every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 without an age limit.
Federal lawmakers have sought to provide copay-free access to mammograms for this entire population even when the USPSTF recommendations in 2009 and 2016 gave a C grade to routine screening for women under 50.
Still, “it is important to note that our recommendation is based solely on the science of what works to prevent breast cancer and it is not a recommendation for or against insurance coverage,” the task force acknowledged when unveiling the new draft update. “Coverage decisions involve considerations beyond the evidence about clinical benefit, and in the end, these decisions are the responsibility of payors, regulators, and legislators.”
Uncertainties persist
The new draft recommendations also highlight the persistent gaps in knowledge about the uses of mammography, despite years of widespread use of this screening tool.
The updated draft recommendations emphasize the lack of sufficient evidence to address major areas of concern related to screening and treating Black women, older women, women with dense breasts, and those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The task force called for more research addressing the underlying causes of elevated breast cancer mortality rates among Black women.
The USPSTF also issued an ‘I’ statement for providing women with dense breasts additional screening with breast ultrasound or MRI and for screening women older than 75 for breast cancer. Such statements indicate that the available evidence is lacking, poor quality, or conflicting, and thus the USPSTF can’t assess the benefits and harms or make a recommendation for or against providing the preventive service.
“Nearly half of all women have dense breasts, which increases their risk for breast cancer and means that mammograms may not work as well for them. We need to know more about whether and how additional screening might help women with dense breasts stay healthy,” the task force explained.
The task force also called for more research on approaches to reduce the risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for breast lesions, such as DCIS, which are identified through screening.
One analysis – the COMET study – is currently underway to assess whether women could be spared surgery for DCIS and opt for watchful waiting instead.
“If we can find that monitoring them carefully, either with or without some sort of endocrine therapy, is just as effective in keeping patients free of invasive cancer as surgery, then I think we could help to de-escalate treatment for this very low-risk group of patients,” Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the COMET study, told this news organization in December.
The task force will accept comments from the public on this draft update through June 5.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Panel backs limited new olaparib use in prostate cancer
A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.
In reviewing the application, a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.
Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”
The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.
Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.
The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).
Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.
In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.
That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.
Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.
The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.
AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”
One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.
People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.
But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.
“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.
In reviewing the application, a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.
Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”
The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.
Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.
The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).
Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.
In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.
That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.
Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.
The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.
AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”
One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.
People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.
But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.
“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A panel of independent advisers recently almost unanimously recommended to restrict a new indication for olaparib (Lynparza) alongside abiraterone (Zytiga) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
On April 28, members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 11 to 1, with one abstention, that only patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation should receive olaparib as part of the combination first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Olaparib is already cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for various ovarian, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications as well as later-line use in certain more advanced prostate cancers. AstraZeneca recently applied for an additional, broad indication for the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor as an initial therapy that would include patients without BRCA or homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations.
In reviewing the application, a phrase agency staff used in their briefing document.
Given these concerns, the FDA reviewers asked the independent ODAC panel to vote on the following question: “As FDA reviews the proposed indication for olaparib in combination with abiraterone for initial treatment of [metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer], should the indication be restricted to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation?”
The ODAC panel voted 11 to 1 in favor of a restricted expansion of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone or prednisolone to patients whose tumors have a BRCA mutation. One member – Ravi A. Madan, MD, of the National Cancer Institute – abstained. The FDA staff asked panelists to abstain if they felt the combination treatment should not be approved for any indication.
Overall, the ODAC panel agreed with the FDA staff’s criticism of the research supporting the application: the PROpel study. The trial randomized 796 patients with previously untreated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to olaparib plus abiraterone or abiraterone plus placebo. The median time for radiographic progression-free survival – the study’s primary endpoint – was nearly 25 months in the olaparib group versus 16.6 months in the placebo group.
The combination also demonstrated a 19% reduced risk of death, which was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .0544), and a median improvement of 7.4 months in the combination arm (42.1 vs. 34.7 months).
Although the study met its primary endpoint, the results were difficult to interpret given the lack of information about genetic variability in the participants’ tumors. Participants were not prospectively assessed for either BRCA or HRR status. But given the importance of BRCA status as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitor efficacy, “this trial design would be considered inappropriate today as the biomarker should have been prospectively evaluated,” the FDA wrote in its briefing document.
In a post hoc analysis performed by the FDA, the agency found that BRCA-positive patients accounted for most of the survival benefit of the combination, though made up only 11% of the PROpel population.
That meant the ODAC members were being asked to evaluate a drug based on “suboptimal data” resulting from a “suboptimal study design,” said Dr. Madan, who is head of the prostate cancer clinical research section in the NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.
Dr. Madan also emphasized concerns the FDA raised about the potential harms for patients whose prostate cancer was not tied to BRCA mutations. In the FDA’s briefing document, the agency said patients treated in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer setting generally have few symptoms at baseline. Adding olaparib among patients lacking the BRCA mutation could expose them to a drug with known side effects but minimal chance to help them.
The PROpel trial also found that patients who received olaparib and abiraterone experienced greater toxicity than those who received abiraterone. These adverse events included venous thromboembolic events, myelosuppression, requirement for blood transfusions, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Although the FDA is not compelled to follow the recommendations of its advisory committees, it often does.
AstraZeneca expressed some disappointment about the recommendation in a press release. Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca, said, “while we are pleased with the recognition of the benefit of Lynparza plus abiraterone for patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, we are disappointed with the outcome of today’s ODAC meeting. We strongly believe in the results of the PROpel trial, which demonstrated the clinically meaningful benefit for this combination in a broad population of patients regardless of biomarker status.”
One ODAC member, Jorge J. Nieva, MD, did support the expanded approval for olaparib, casting the single “no” vote. Dr. Nieva, an oncologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, disagreed with the FDA’s question about limiting use of the olaparib-abiraterone combination to patients with known BRCA mutations, citing the positive result from the PROpel trial.
People are aware that olaparib provides a great deal more benefit in the BRCA-positive group and may give “only minimal benefit if these tests are not positive,” but “these risks and benefits can be addressed at the patient and physician level,” he said.
But Terrence M. Kungel, MBA, who served as ODAC’s patient representative for the meeting, offered a counterpoint to Dr. Nieva’s assessment. Patients now often struggle to assess the options available to them and then pay for these medicines, with financial toxicity affecting many people with cancer.
“Prostate cancer patients need more treatments that are effective, not more choices,” said Mr. Kungel, who voted with the majority.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Medicare rule streamlines prior authorization in Medicare Advantage plans
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CRC blood tests: A future without screening colonoscopies?
Most recently, Guardant Health announced the completion of its U.S. premarket approval application for its Shield blood test to screen for CRC. Approval by the Food and Drug Administration would position Guardant to later secure Medicare coverage for its test.
Rival companies, including CellMax Life, Freenome, and Exact Sciences, which already offers the stool-based Cologuard product, are pursuing similar paths in their development of blood tests for CRC.
If these companies succeed, clinicians and patients could have a choice of several FDA-approved tests in a few years.
“They’re coming, and they will be increasingly widely used,” said David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who earlier in his career helped win broader insurance coverage of colonoscopy.
Blood tests for CRC have the potential to cause a shift in screening for colon cancer.
Screening colonoscopies ultimately could be largely phased out in the years ahead in favor of highly sensitive noninvasive tests, if the blood tests do as well as expected, said John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, president of the American Gastroenterological Association.
‘Holy grail?’
“A blood test for cancer screening has been the ‘holy grail’ ever since the carcinoembryonic antigen blood test in the 1960s was claimed to have nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity – but turned out not to – for colorectal cancer,” wrote David F. Ransohoff, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a 2021 article. Dr. Ransohoff has studied noninvasive CRC screening for decades.
There is a great allure in the idea of such multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests. “MCD technology offers the potential to detect asymptomatic cancer at several organ sites with a simple blood test, often called a liquid biopsy, ” according to a National Cancer Institute FY24 budget request report.
Several companies are selling MCD tests, some of which include CRC components. Among the best-known MCD tests now sold is Grail’s Galleri. At this time, however, the Galleri test, which tests for 50 types of cancer, should be used in addition to recommended colon cancer screening tests, such as colonoscopy, the company’s website says.
Guardant has also noted that its CRC-specific blood test should only complement screening tools, including colonoscopy, not replace them.
The prospect of phasing out more commonly used CRC screening – such as colonoscopy – may be appealing, but it would require a big shift for a field in which procedures have dominated. According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, 67% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years met the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for CRC screening, and overall, 60.6% had a colonoscopy in the past 10 years.
Still, the NCI and the FDA have signaled the potential they see in MCD tests. The NCI highlighted its plans to aid MCD test development as part of its budget request for fiscal year 2024. The NCI is preparing to launch a 4-year pilot study for MCD tests to enroll 24,000 people aged 45-70 years. The study is intended as groundwork for a randomized controlled trial that will enroll 225,000 people.
The FDA has shown an interest in helping companies bring blood tests for cancer detection to market through its breakthrough device designation – a sign that the FDA places great priority on a product and seeks to streamline the application and review process.
CellMax Life appears to be the only CRC-specific screening blood test to have received a breakthrough device designation from the FDA, Atul Sharan, MS, MBA, cofounder and chief executive officer of CellMax Life, said in an email.
Lance Baldo, MD, Freenome’s chief medical officer, said in an interview that the FDA may be reviewing parts of their application in 2024, allowing for a potential 2025 launch of a blood test for asymptomatic people at average risk for CRC.
A spotty track record
Before anyone gets too excited about the prospect of phasing out screening colonoscopy, it’s important to remember that CRC blood tests have proven disappointing in the past.
Germany’s Epigenomics, for example, secured the first FDA approval for a CRC blood test, Epi ProColon, in 2016. But the company did not receive Medicare coverage for the test. In a 2021 memo explaining the decision, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services noted that, given more reliable alternatives, including stool-based tests, the Epi ProColon would result in harm to some patients.
CMS also does not cover Grail’s blood test, which has a list price of $949, though the company has secured reimbursement arrangements with several self-insured employers and insurers, such as Point32Health.
But CMS officials have acknowledged the strong interest in CRC blood tests.
In that 2021 memo, the agency also outlined its requirements for Medicare coverage. CMS said it will cover blood-based screening tests for certain patients if these products meet the following standards:
- Receive FDA market authorization with an indication for CRC screening.
- Have proven test performance characteristics for a blood-based screening test with sensitivity of at least 74% and specificity of at least 90% in the detection of CRC, compared with the recognized standard (which at this time is colonoscopy) as minimal threshold levels, based on the pivotal studies included in the FDA labeling.
In February 2023, CellLife Max presented data at ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium that its blood test had sensitivity of 92.1% for detection of CRC and 54.5% for detection of advanced adenomas, at 91% specificity.
Prior to that, in December 2022, Guardant issued a press release with study results that met the CMS standard. The test had sensitivity of 83% in detecting individuals with CRC. Specificity was 90%, the company said. That translates to a false positive rate of just 10%.
While such results look promising, Asad Umar, DVM, PhD, the chief of gastrointestinal and other cancers at NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said physicians should be cautious when giving advice or answering questions about MCD tests, given limited data from prospective studies about their effect on health outcomes.
Even among physicians already using some MCD tests to screen patients, there is a lot of concern about false-positive results that require diagnostic workup and false negative results that lead to a false sense of assurance, Dr. Umar said.
“Screening is a process and not just a test. The process involves follow-up testing for any positive test findings,” Dr. Umar said. “At this point, doctors should inform patients that there is not sufficient data to know how best to use these tests.”
Hurdles to broad acceptance
For companies seeking broad acceptance of a CRC blood test, two of the three major steps needed are securing FDA approval and Medicare coverage. The last step would be getting an A or B recommendation from the USPSTF, which would mandate coverage by health plans.
This is the “big trifecta,” Dr. Baldo said.
In the USPSTF’s current colon cancer screening recommendations, issued in 2021, it gave an A grade for CRC screening for adults aged 50-75 years and a B grade for those aged 45-49 years.
The USPSTF’s recommended forms of screening include colonoscopy, high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), stool DNA, and/or computed tomographic colonography (CTC).
The USPSTF says more research is needed to establish the accuracy and effectiveness of emerging screening technologies, such as blood or serum tests.
If CRC blood tests eventually win FDA approval, the USPSTF would likely provide guidance to clinicians on how patients can use them as a screening option.
Dr. Ransohoff noted that the mission of the USPSTF is different from that of the FDA and CMS. The FDA’s approach on medical tests is to consider overall safety and efficacy, as does CMS, but neither agency makes recommendations, nor does it perform its own rigorous quantitative assessment of benefit versus harm. The USPSTF, however, does its own detailed evidence-based reviews of the benefit versus harm of products, Dr. Ransohoff said.
“To me, the Task Force is the gold standard,” Dr. Ransohoff said. “You have to jump through the hoops with the FDA and CMS for making claims, to enable use, and to help get payment. But the Task Force looks at the choices and the consequences in a quantitative way and makes specific practice recommendations.”
What the future may hold
Dr. Carethers sees a future in which highly sensitive blood tests are able to largely replace screening colonoscopies. He said that colonoscopies would be used for people who are most in need of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Carethers addressed these points during an AGA podcast released in January 2023.
In 20-25 years, colonoscopies may be only a therapeutic procedure, much like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is now, Dr. Carethers added.
Even if CRC-specific blood tests prove to be effective screening tools, Dr. Ransohoff stressed that colonoscopy will survive. Many people will eventually need to undergo colonoscopy as a diagnostic procedure following a positive blood-based test result, and some may also opt for screening colonoscopies in lieu of frequent blood tests.
And, overall, physicians and patients will need to weigh the trade-offs of a noninvasive test that can only diagnose CRC versus a screening colonoscopy that offers preventative treatment as well.
“The best intent for screening is prevention of cancer, not detection of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Carethers, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Ransohoff reporting having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Most recently, Guardant Health announced the completion of its U.S. premarket approval application for its Shield blood test to screen for CRC. Approval by the Food and Drug Administration would position Guardant to later secure Medicare coverage for its test.
Rival companies, including CellMax Life, Freenome, and Exact Sciences, which already offers the stool-based Cologuard product, are pursuing similar paths in their development of blood tests for CRC.
If these companies succeed, clinicians and patients could have a choice of several FDA-approved tests in a few years.
“They’re coming, and they will be increasingly widely used,” said David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who earlier in his career helped win broader insurance coverage of colonoscopy.
Blood tests for CRC have the potential to cause a shift in screening for colon cancer.
Screening colonoscopies ultimately could be largely phased out in the years ahead in favor of highly sensitive noninvasive tests, if the blood tests do as well as expected, said John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, president of the American Gastroenterological Association.
‘Holy grail?’
“A blood test for cancer screening has been the ‘holy grail’ ever since the carcinoembryonic antigen blood test in the 1960s was claimed to have nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity – but turned out not to – for colorectal cancer,” wrote David F. Ransohoff, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a 2021 article. Dr. Ransohoff has studied noninvasive CRC screening for decades.
There is a great allure in the idea of such multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests. “MCD technology offers the potential to detect asymptomatic cancer at several organ sites with a simple blood test, often called a liquid biopsy, ” according to a National Cancer Institute FY24 budget request report.
Several companies are selling MCD tests, some of which include CRC components. Among the best-known MCD tests now sold is Grail’s Galleri. At this time, however, the Galleri test, which tests for 50 types of cancer, should be used in addition to recommended colon cancer screening tests, such as colonoscopy, the company’s website says.
Guardant has also noted that its CRC-specific blood test should only complement screening tools, including colonoscopy, not replace them.
The prospect of phasing out more commonly used CRC screening – such as colonoscopy – may be appealing, but it would require a big shift for a field in which procedures have dominated. According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, 67% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years met the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for CRC screening, and overall, 60.6% had a colonoscopy in the past 10 years.
Still, the NCI and the FDA have signaled the potential they see in MCD tests. The NCI highlighted its plans to aid MCD test development as part of its budget request for fiscal year 2024. The NCI is preparing to launch a 4-year pilot study for MCD tests to enroll 24,000 people aged 45-70 years. The study is intended as groundwork for a randomized controlled trial that will enroll 225,000 people.
The FDA has shown an interest in helping companies bring blood tests for cancer detection to market through its breakthrough device designation – a sign that the FDA places great priority on a product and seeks to streamline the application and review process.
CellMax Life appears to be the only CRC-specific screening blood test to have received a breakthrough device designation from the FDA, Atul Sharan, MS, MBA, cofounder and chief executive officer of CellMax Life, said in an email.
Lance Baldo, MD, Freenome’s chief medical officer, said in an interview that the FDA may be reviewing parts of their application in 2024, allowing for a potential 2025 launch of a blood test for asymptomatic people at average risk for CRC.
A spotty track record
Before anyone gets too excited about the prospect of phasing out screening colonoscopy, it’s important to remember that CRC blood tests have proven disappointing in the past.
Germany’s Epigenomics, for example, secured the first FDA approval for a CRC blood test, Epi ProColon, in 2016. But the company did not receive Medicare coverage for the test. In a 2021 memo explaining the decision, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services noted that, given more reliable alternatives, including stool-based tests, the Epi ProColon would result in harm to some patients.
CMS also does not cover Grail’s blood test, which has a list price of $949, though the company has secured reimbursement arrangements with several self-insured employers and insurers, such as Point32Health.
But CMS officials have acknowledged the strong interest in CRC blood tests.
In that 2021 memo, the agency also outlined its requirements for Medicare coverage. CMS said it will cover blood-based screening tests for certain patients if these products meet the following standards:
- Receive FDA market authorization with an indication for CRC screening.
- Have proven test performance characteristics for a blood-based screening test with sensitivity of at least 74% and specificity of at least 90% in the detection of CRC, compared with the recognized standard (which at this time is colonoscopy) as minimal threshold levels, based on the pivotal studies included in the FDA labeling.
In February 2023, CellLife Max presented data at ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium that its blood test had sensitivity of 92.1% for detection of CRC and 54.5% for detection of advanced adenomas, at 91% specificity.
Prior to that, in December 2022, Guardant issued a press release with study results that met the CMS standard. The test had sensitivity of 83% in detecting individuals with CRC. Specificity was 90%, the company said. That translates to a false positive rate of just 10%.
While such results look promising, Asad Umar, DVM, PhD, the chief of gastrointestinal and other cancers at NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said physicians should be cautious when giving advice or answering questions about MCD tests, given limited data from prospective studies about their effect on health outcomes.
Even among physicians already using some MCD tests to screen patients, there is a lot of concern about false-positive results that require diagnostic workup and false negative results that lead to a false sense of assurance, Dr. Umar said.
“Screening is a process and not just a test. The process involves follow-up testing for any positive test findings,” Dr. Umar said. “At this point, doctors should inform patients that there is not sufficient data to know how best to use these tests.”
Hurdles to broad acceptance
For companies seeking broad acceptance of a CRC blood test, two of the three major steps needed are securing FDA approval and Medicare coverage. The last step would be getting an A or B recommendation from the USPSTF, which would mandate coverage by health plans.
This is the “big trifecta,” Dr. Baldo said.
In the USPSTF’s current colon cancer screening recommendations, issued in 2021, it gave an A grade for CRC screening for adults aged 50-75 years and a B grade for those aged 45-49 years.
The USPSTF’s recommended forms of screening include colonoscopy, high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), stool DNA, and/or computed tomographic colonography (CTC).
The USPSTF says more research is needed to establish the accuracy and effectiveness of emerging screening technologies, such as blood or serum tests.
If CRC blood tests eventually win FDA approval, the USPSTF would likely provide guidance to clinicians on how patients can use them as a screening option.
Dr. Ransohoff noted that the mission of the USPSTF is different from that of the FDA and CMS. The FDA’s approach on medical tests is to consider overall safety and efficacy, as does CMS, but neither agency makes recommendations, nor does it perform its own rigorous quantitative assessment of benefit versus harm. The USPSTF, however, does its own detailed evidence-based reviews of the benefit versus harm of products, Dr. Ransohoff said.
“To me, the Task Force is the gold standard,” Dr. Ransohoff said. “You have to jump through the hoops with the FDA and CMS for making claims, to enable use, and to help get payment. But the Task Force looks at the choices and the consequences in a quantitative way and makes specific practice recommendations.”
What the future may hold
Dr. Carethers sees a future in which highly sensitive blood tests are able to largely replace screening colonoscopies. He said that colonoscopies would be used for people who are most in need of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Carethers addressed these points during an AGA podcast released in January 2023.
In 20-25 years, colonoscopies may be only a therapeutic procedure, much like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is now, Dr. Carethers added.
Even if CRC-specific blood tests prove to be effective screening tools, Dr. Ransohoff stressed that colonoscopy will survive. Many people will eventually need to undergo colonoscopy as a diagnostic procedure following a positive blood-based test result, and some may also opt for screening colonoscopies in lieu of frequent blood tests.
And, overall, physicians and patients will need to weigh the trade-offs of a noninvasive test that can only diagnose CRC versus a screening colonoscopy that offers preventative treatment as well.
“The best intent for screening is prevention of cancer, not detection of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Carethers, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Ransohoff reporting having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Most recently, Guardant Health announced the completion of its U.S. premarket approval application for its Shield blood test to screen for CRC. Approval by the Food and Drug Administration would position Guardant to later secure Medicare coverage for its test.
Rival companies, including CellMax Life, Freenome, and Exact Sciences, which already offers the stool-based Cologuard product, are pursuing similar paths in their development of blood tests for CRC.
If these companies succeed, clinicians and patients could have a choice of several FDA-approved tests in a few years.
“They’re coming, and they will be increasingly widely used,” said David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who earlier in his career helped win broader insurance coverage of colonoscopy.
Blood tests for CRC have the potential to cause a shift in screening for colon cancer.
Screening colonoscopies ultimately could be largely phased out in the years ahead in favor of highly sensitive noninvasive tests, if the blood tests do as well as expected, said John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, president of the American Gastroenterological Association.
‘Holy grail?’
“A blood test for cancer screening has been the ‘holy grail’ ever since the carcinoembryonic antigen blood test in the 1960s was claimed to have nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity – but turned out not to – for colorectal cancer,” wrote David F. Ransohoff, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a 2021 article. Dr. Ransohoff has studied noninvasive CRC screening for decades.
There is a great allure in the idea of such multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests. “MCD technology offers the potential to detect asymptomatic cancer at several organ sites with a simple blood test, often called a liquid biopsy, ” according to a National Cancer Institute FY24 budget request report.
Several companies are selling MCD tests, some of which include CRC components. Among the best-known MCD tests now sold is Grail’s Galleri. At this time, however, the Galleri test, which tests for 50 types of cancer, should be used in addition to recommended colon cancer screening tests, such as colonoscopy, the company’s website says.
Guardant has also noted that its CRC-specific blood test should only complement screening tools, including colonoscopy, not replace them.
The prospect of phasing out more commonly used CRC screening – such as colonoscopy – may be appealing, but it would require a big shift for a field in which procedures have dominated. According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2018, 67% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years met the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for CRC screening, and overall, 60.6% had a colonoscopy in the past 10 years.
Still, the NCI and the FDA have signaled the potential they see in MCD tests. The NCI highlighted its plans to aid MCD test development as part of its budget request for fiscal year 2024. The NCI is preparing to launch a 4-year pilot study for MCD tests to enroll 24,000 people aged 45-70 years. The study is intended as groundwork for a randomized controlled trial that will enroll 225,000 people.
The FDA has shown an interest in helping companies bring blood tests for cancer detection to market through its breakthrough device designation – a sign that the FDA places great priority on a product and seeks to streamline the application and review process.
CellMax Life appears to be the only CRC-specific screening blood test to have received a breakthrough device designation from the FDA, Atul Sharan, MS, MBA, cofounder and chief executive officer of CellMax Life, said in an email.
Lance Baldo, MD, Freenome’s chief medical officer, said in an interview that the FDA may be reviewing parts of their application in 2024, allowing for a potential 2025 launch of a blood test for asymptomatic people at average risk for CRC.
A spotty track record
Before anyone gets too excited about the prospect of phasing out screening colonoscopy, it’s important to remember that CRC blood tests have proven disappointing in the past.
Germany’s Epigenomics, for example, secured the first FDA approval for a CRC blood test, Epi ProColon, in 2016. But the company did not receive Medicare coverage for the test. In a 2021 memo explaining the decision, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services noted that, given more reliable alternatives, including stool-based tests, the Epi ProColon would result in harm to some patients.
CMS also does not cover Grail’s blood test, which has a list price of $949, though the company has secured reimbursement arrangements with several self-insured employers and insurers, such as Point32Health.
But CMS officials have acknowledged the strong interest in CRC blood tests.
In that 2021 memo, the agency also outlined its requirements for Medicare coverage. CMS said it will cover blood-based screening tests for certain patients if these products meet the following standards:
- Receive FDA market authorization with an indication for CRC screening.
- Have proven test performance characteristics for a blood-based screening test with sensitivity of at least 74% and specificity of at least 90% in the detection of CRC, compared with the recognized standard (which at this time is colonoscopy) as minimal threshold levels, based on the pivotal studies included in the FDA labeling.
In February 2023, CellLife Max presented data at ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium that its blood test had sensitivity of 92.1% for detection of CRC and 54.5% for detection of advanced adenomas, at 91% specificity.
Prior to that, in December 2022, Guardant issued a press release with study results that met the CMS standard. The test had sensitivity of 83% in detecting individuals with CRC. Specificity was 90%, the company said. That translates to a false positive rate of just 10%.
While such results look promising, Asad Umar, DVM, PhD, the chief of gastrointestinal and other cancers at NCI’s division of cancer prevention, said physicians should be cautious when giving advice or answering questions about MCD tests, given limited data from prospective studies about their effect on health outcomes.
Even among physicians already using some MCD tests to screen patients, there is a lot of concern about false-positive results that require diagnostic workup and false negative results that lead to a false sense of assurance, Dr. Umar said.
“Screening is a process and not just a test. The process involves follow-up testing for any positive test findings,” Dr. Umar said. “At this point, doctors should inform patients that there is not sufficient data to know how best to use these tests.”
Hurdles to broad acceptance
For companies seeking broad acceptance of a CRC blood test, two of the three major steps needed are securing FDA approval and Medicare coverage. The last step would be getting an A or B recommendation from the USPSTF, which would mandate coverage by health plans.
This is the “big trifecta,” Dr. Baldo said.
In the USPSTF’s current colon cancer screening recommendations, issued in 2021, it gave an A grade for CRC screening for adults aged 50-75 years and a B grade for those aged 45-49 years.
The USPSTF’s recommended forms of screening include colonoscopy, high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood (gFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), stool DNA, and/or computed tomographic colonography (CTC).
The USPSTF says more research is needed to establish the accuracy and effectiveness of emerging screening technologies, such as blood or serum tests.
If CRC blood tests eventually win FDA approval, the USPSTF would likely provide guidance to clinicians on how patients can use them as a screening option.
Dr. Ransohoff noted that the mission of the USPSTF is different from that of the FDA and CMS. The FDA’s approach on medical tests is to consider overall safety and efficacy, as does CMS, but neither agency makes recommendations, nor does it perform its own rigorous quantitative assessment of benefit versus harm. The USPSTF, however, does its own detailed evidence-based reviews of the benefit versus harm of products, Dr. Ransohoff said.
“To me, the Task Force is the gold standard,” Dr. Ransohoff said. “You have to jump through the hoops with the FDA and CMS for making claims, to enable use, and to help get payment. But the Task Force looks at the choices and the consequences in a quantitative way and makes specific practice recommendations.”
What the future may hold
Dr. Carethers sees a future in which highly sensitive blood tests are able to largely replace screening colonoscopies. He said that colonoscopies would be used for people who are most in need of diagnosis and treatment. Dr. Carethers addressed these points during an AGA podcast released in January 2023.
In 20-25 years, colonoscopies may be only a therapeutic procedure, much like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is now, Dr. Carethers added.
Even if CRC-specific blood tests prove to be effective screening tools, Dr. Ransohoff stressed that colonoscopy will survive. Many people will eventually need to undergo colonoscopy as a diagnostic procedure following a positive blood-based test result, and some may also opt for screening colonoscopies in lieu of frequent blood tests.
And, overall, physicians and patients will need to weigh the trade-offs of a noninvasive test that can only diagnose CRC versus a screening colonoscopy that offers preventative treatment as well.
“The best intent for screening is prevention of cancer, not detection of cancer,” said Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Carethers, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Ransohoff reporting having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New challenge for docs: End of COVID federal public health emergency
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Biden administration intends to end by May 11 certain COVID-19 emergency measures used to aid in the response to the pandemic, while many others will remain in place.
A separate declaration covers the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID medicines and tests. That would not be affected by the May 11 deadline, the FDA said. In addition, Congress and state lawmakers have extended some COVID response measures.
The result is a patchwork of emergency COVID-19 measures with different end dates.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) are assessing how best to advise their members about the end of the public health emergency.
Several waivers regarding copays and coverage and policies regarding controlled substances will expire, Claire Ernst, director of government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, told this news organization.
The impact of the unwinding “will vary based on some factors, such as what state the practice resides in,” Ms. Ernst said. “Fortunately, Congress provided some predictability for practices by extending many of the telehealth waivers through the end of 2024.”
The AAFP told this news organization that it has joined several other groups in calling for the release of proposed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations meant to permanently allow prescriptions of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder via telehealth. The AAFP and other groups want to review these proposals and, if needed, urge the DEA to modify or finalize before there are any disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder.
Patients’ questions
Clinicians can expect to field patients’ questions about their insurance coverage and what they need to pay, said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality and patient safety policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA).
“Your doctor’s office, that clinic you typically get care at, that is the face of medicine to you,” Ms. Foster told this news organization. “Many doctors and their staff will be asked, ‘What’s happening with Medicaid?’ ‘What about my Medicare coverage?’ ‘Can I still access care in the same way that I did before?’ ”
Physicians will need to be ready to answers those question, or point patients to where they can get answers, Ms. Foster said.
For example, Medicaid will no longer cover postpartum care for some enrollees after giving birth, said Taylor Platt, health policy manager for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
The federal response to the pandemic created “a de facto postpartum coverage extension for Medicaid enrollees,” which will be lost in some states, Ms. Platt told this news organization. However, 28 states and the District of Columbia have taken separate measures to extend postpartum coverage to 1 year.
“This coverage has been critical for postpartum individuals to address health needs like substance use and mental health treatment and chronic conditions,” Ms. Platt said.
States significantly changed Medicaid policy to expand access to care during the pandemic.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia, for example, expanded coverage or access to telehealth services in Medicaid during the pandemic, according to a Jan. 31 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). These expansions expire under various deadlines, although most states have made or are planning to make some Medicaid telehealth flexibilities permanent, KFF said.
The KFF report notes that all states and the District of Columbia temporarily waived some aspects of state licensure requirements, so that clinicians with equivalent licenses in other states could practice via telehealth.
In some states, these waivers are still active and are tied to the end of the federal emergency declaration. In others, they expired, with some states allowing for long-term or permanent interstate telemedicine, KFF said. (The Federation of State Medical Boards has a detailed summary of these modifications.)
The end of free COVID vaccines, testing for some patients
The AAFP has also raised concerns about continued access to COVID-19 vaccines, particularly for uninsured adults. Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, the White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator, said in a tweet that this transition, however, wouldn’t happen until a few months after the public health emergency ends.
After those few months, there will be a transition from U.S. government–distributed vaccines and treatments to ones purchased through the regular health care system, the “way we do for every other vaccine and treatment,” Dr. Jha added.
But that raises the same kind of difficult questions that permeate U.S. health care, with a potential to keep COVID active, said Patricia Jackson, RN, president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC).
People who don’t have insurance may lose access to COVID testing and vaccines.
“Will that lead to increases in transmission? Who knows,” Ms. Jackson told this news organization. “We will have to see. There are some health equity issues that potentially arise.”
Future FDA actions
Biden’s May 11 deadline applies to emergency provisions made under a Section 319 declaration, which allow the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to crises.
But a separate flexibility, known as a Section 564 declaration, covers the FDA’s EUAs, which can remain in effect even as the other declarations end.
The best-known EUAs for the pandemic were used to bring COVID vaccines and treatments to market. Many of these have since been converted to normal approvals as companies presented more evidence to support the initial emergency approvals. In other cases, EUAs have been withdrawn owing to disappointing research results, changing virus strains, and evolving medical treatments.
The FDA also used many EUAs to cover new uses of ventilators and other hospital equipment and expand these supplies in response to the pandemic, said Mark Howell, AHA’s director of policy and patient safety.
The FDA should examine the EUAs issued during the pandemic to see what greater flexibilities might be used to deal with future serious shortages of critical supplies. International incidents such as the war in Ukraine show how fragile the supply chain can be. The FDA should consider its recent experience with EUAs to address this, Mr. Howell said.
“What do we do coming out of the pandemic? And how do we think about being more proactive in this space to ensure that our supply doesn’t bottleneck, that we continue to make sure that providers have access to supply that’s not only safe and effective, but that they can use?” Mr. Howell told this news organization.
Such planning might also help prepare the country for the next pandemic, which is a near certainty, APIC’s Ms. Jackson said. The nation needs a nimbler response to the next major outbreak of an infectious disease, she said.
“There is going to be a next time,” Ms. Jackson said. “We are going to have another pandemic.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel backs shift toward one-dose COVID shot
The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots.
COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA:
“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”
In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.
The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.
In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.
Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated.
“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.
“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
The plan
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination.
This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.
During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines.
Increasing vaccination rates
There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.
“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.
But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said.
“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.”
Panelists press for more data
Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data.
Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered.
“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”
Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.
At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.
“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.
The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.
“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said.
VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.
“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”
In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work.
“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots.
COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA:
“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”
In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.
The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.
In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.
Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated.
“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.
“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
The plan
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination.
This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.
During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines.
Increasing vaccination rates
There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.
“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.
But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said.
“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.”
Panelists press for more data
Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data.
Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered.
“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”
Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.
At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.
“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.
The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.
“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said.
VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.
“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”
In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work.
“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots.
COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA:
“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”
In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.
The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.
In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.
Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated.
“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.
“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
The plan
In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination.
This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.
During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines.
Increasing vaccination rates
There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.
“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.
But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said.
“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.”
Panelists press for more data
Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data.
Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered.
“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”
Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.
At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.
“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.
The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.
“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said.
VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.
“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”
In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work.
“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Medicare pay cuts partly averted in massive budget bill
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.
The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.
The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.
Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.
These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as , the AMA said.
“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.
While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.
“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
New health care policies in omnibus
Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:
- Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
- Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
- Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
- Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
- Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
- Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.
FDA’s accelerated approval
The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.
The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.
Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.
Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:
- Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
- Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
- Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.
Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.
The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.
Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.
“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Will ICER review aid bid for Medicare to pay for obesity drugs?
A report from a well-respected nonprofit group may bolster efforts to have Medicare, the largest U.S. purchaser of prescription drugs, cover obesity medicines, for which there has been accumulating evidence of significant benefit.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released a report last month on obesity medicines, based on extensive review of research done to date and input from clinicians, drug-makers, and members of the public.
Of the treatments reviewed, the ICER report gave the best ratings to two Novo Nordisk products, a B+ for semaglutide (Wegovy) and a B for liraglutide (Saxenda), while also making the case for price cuts. At an annual U.S. net price estimated at $13,618, semaglutide exceeds what ICER considers typical cost-effectiveness thresholds. ICER suggested a benchmark annual price range for semaglutide of between $7,500 and $9,800.
The ICER report also directs insurers in general to provide more generous coverage of obesity medicines, with a specific recommendation for the U.S. Congress to pass a pending bill known as the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021. The bill would undo a restriction on weight-loss drugs in the Medicare Part D plans, which covered about 49 million people last year. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD, (R-La.) have repeatedly introduced versions of the bill since 2013.
“In both chambers of Congress and with bipartisan support, we’ve pushed to expand Medicare coverage of additional therapies and medications to treat obesity,” Sen. Cassidy said in an email. “This report confirms what we’ve worked on for nearly a decade – our legislation will help improve lives.”
The current House version of the bill has the backing of more than a third of the members of that chamber, with 113 Democratic and 40 Republican cosponsors. The Senate version has 22 sponsors.
Changing views
The ICER report comes amid a broader change in how clinicians view obesity.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is readying a new Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Pediatric Obesity that will mark a major shift in approach. Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, described it as a “sea change,” with obesity now seen as “a chronic, refractory, relapsing disease,” for which watchful waiting is no longer appropriate.
But the field of obesity treatment looked quite different in the early 2000s when Congress worked on a plan to add a pharmacy benefit to Medicare.
The deliberate omission of obesity medicine in the Medicare Part D benefit reflected both the state of science at the time and U.S. experience with a dangerous weight-loss drug combo in the late 1990s.
Initial expectations for weight-loss pills were high after the Food and Drug Administration cleared dexfenfluramine HCl (Redux) in 1996, which was part of the popular fen-phen combination. “Newly Approved Diet Drug Promises to Help Millions of Obese Americans – But Is No Magic Bullet,” read a headline about the Redux approval in The Washington Post
When work began in the 2000s to create a Medicare pharmacy benefit, lawmakers and congressional staff had a pool of about $400 billion available to establish what became the Part D program, Joel White, a former House staffer who helped draft the law, told this news organization in an email exchange.
Given the state of obesity research at the time, it seemed to make sense to exclude weight-loss medications, wrote Mr. White. Mr. White is now chief executive of the consulting firm Horizon, which has clients in the drug industry including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
“Now we know that obesity is a chronic disease of epidemic proportions. Decades of research have produced a series of advances in the way we understand and treat obesity. While scientists and many who work directly with those impacted by this epidemic understand how treatments have advanced, the law lags behind,” Mr. White said.
XXXCurrent payment policies for obesity treatments are based on “outdated information and ongoing misperception,” he noted. “While Part D has been a resounding success, our Medicare approach to obesity is not.”
“In addition, it makes no sense that Medicare covers the most drastic procedure (bariatric surgery) but not less-invasive, effective treatments,” he added. “We should have long ago lifted restrictions based on advances in science and medicine.”
Overcoming the stigma
Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, agreed and hopes that the new ICER report will help more patients secure needed medications, raising a “call to arms” about the need for better coverage of obesity drugs.
Dr. Kahan is director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, a private clinic in Washington, and chair of the clinical committee for The Obesity Society. He also served as a member of a policy roundtable that ICER convened as part of research on the report on obesity drugs. Dr. Kahan, who also serves on the faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, has received fees from drug makers such as Eli Lilly.
The ICER report may help what Dr. Kahan described as well-founded caution about obesity treatments in general.
“When it comes to weight loss, there are all of these magical treatments that are sold on social media and traditional media. There are a lot of bad actors in terms of people calling themselves experts and gurus and promising all kinds of crazy stuff,” said Dr. Kahan.
And there are long-standing stigmas about obesity, he stressed.
“That underlies a lot of the backward policies, including poor coverage for medications and the noncoverage by Medicare,” Dr. Kahan said. “There’s a societal ingrained set of beliefs and misperceptions and biases. That takes time to unwind, and I think we’re on the way, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Lifestyle changes not enough to tackle obesity
AHIP (formerly America’s Health Insurance Plans) told this news organization its members consider ICER reports when making decisions about which products to cover. “And health plans already cover obesity treatments that they consider medically necessary,” said David Allen, an AHIP spokesperson.
“It is important to note that every treatment does not work for every patient, and many patients experience adverse events and may discontinue treatment,” he added in an email. “Health insurance providers play an important role in helping [health care] providers and patients identify the treatment options that are most likely to be effective as well as affordable.”
Separately, the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen cautioned against liraglutide on its Worst Pills, Best Pills website. In its view, the drug is minimally effective and has many dangerous adverse effects, which are even more frequent with the higher-dose weight-loss version (a lower-dose version is approved for type 2 diabetes).
“There is currently no medication that can be used safely to achieve weight loss effortlessly and without dangerous adverse effects,” the group said. “Rather than focus on losing weight by turning to risky drugs, overweight and obese adults seeking to achieve better health should make reasonable and sustainable changes to their lifestyle, such as eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise.”
Yet, many people find there is little help available for making lifestyle changes, and some patients and physicians say these modifications by themselves are not enough.
“The vast majority of people with obesity cannot achieve sustained weight loss through diet and exercise alone,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in an Oct. 20 statement. “As such, obesity, and its resulting physical health, mental health, and social burdens, is not a choice or failing, but a medical condition.”
The focus should now be on assuring that effective medications “are priced in alignment with their benefits so that they are accessible and affordable across U.S. society,” Dr. Rind urges.
‘My own demise with a fork and knife’
ICER sought public feedback on a draft version of the report before finalizing it.
In their comments on ICER’s work, several pharmaceutical researchers and Novo Nordisk questioned the calculations used in making judgments about the value of obesity drugs. In a statement, Novo Nordisk told this news organization that the company’s view is that ICER’s modeling “does not adequately address the real-world complexities of obesity, and consequently underestimates the health and societal impact medical treatments can have.”
Commenters also dug into aspects of ICER’s calculations, including ones that consider quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). ICER describes QALY as an academic standard for measuring how well all different types of medical treatments can extend or improve patients’ lives. In an explainer on its website, ICER says this metric has served as a fundamental component of cost-effectiveness analyses in the United States and around the world for more than 30 years.
ICER and drug makers have been at odds for some time, with PhRMA having criticized the nonprofit group. A 2020 Reuters article detailed public relations strategies used by firms paid by drug makers to raise questions about ICER’s work. Critics accuse it of allying with insurers.
ICER’s list of its recent financial supporters includes Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, but also many other groups, such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The public comments on the ICER report also include one from an unidentified woman who wrote of her past struggles to lose weight.
She said her health plan wouldn’t cover behavioral programs or semaglutide as a weight-loss drug but did cover it eventually because of signs that she had developed insulin resistance. The patient said the drug worked for her, whereas other approaches to control weight had failed.
“To put it simply, I now experience hunger and satiety in a way that I can only assume people with normal metabolism do. I am 49 years old and approaching the age where serious comorbidities associated with obesity begin to manifest,” the patient wrote.
“I no longer worry about bringing about my own demise with a fork and knife because of misfiring hunger cues.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A report from a well-respected nonprofit group may bolster efforts to have Medicare, the largest U.S. purchaser of prescription drugs, cover obesity medicines, for which there has been accumulating evidence of significant benefit.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released a report last month on obesity medicines, based on extensive review of research done to date and input from clinicians, drug-makers, and members of the public.
Of the treatments reviewed, the ICER report gave the best ratings to two Novo Nordisk products, a B+ for semaglutide (Wegovy) and a B for liraglutide (Saxenda), while also making the case for price cuts. At an annual U.S. net price estimated at $13,618, semaglutide exceeds what ICER considers typical cost-effectiveness thresholds. ICER suggested a benchmark annual price range for semaglutide of between $7,500 and $9,800.
The ICER report also directs insurers in general to provide more generous coverage of obesity medicines, with a specific recommendation for the U.S. Congress to pass a pending bill known as the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021. The bill would undo a restriction on weight-loss drugs in the Medicare Part D plans, which covered about 49 million people last year. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD, (R-La.) have repeatedly introduced versions of the bill since 2013.
“In both chambers of Congress and with bipartisan support, we’ve pushed to expand Medicare coverage of additional therapies and medications to treat obesity,” Sen. Cassidy said in an email. “This report confirms what we’ve worked on for nearly a decade – our legislation will help improve lives.”
The current House version of the bill has the backing of more than a third of the members of that chamber, with 113 Democratic and 40 Republican cosponsors. The Senate version has 22 sponsors.
Changing views
The ICER report comes amid a broader change in how clinicians view obesity.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is readying a new Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Pediatric Obesity that will mark a major shift in approach. Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, described it as a “sea change,” with obesity now seen as “a chronic, refractory, relapsing disease,” for which watchful waiting is no longer appropriate.
But the field of obesity treatment looked quite different in the early 2000s when Congress worked on a plan to add a pharmacy benefit to Medicare.
The deliberate omission of obesity medicine in the Medicare Part D benefit reflected both the state of science at the time and U.S. experience with a dangerous weight-loss drug combo in the late 1990s.
Initial expectations for weight-loss pills were high after the Food and Drug Administration cleared dexfenfluramine HCl (Redux) in 1996, which was part of the popular fen-phen combination. “Newly Approved Diet Drug Promises to Help Millions of Obese Americans – But Is No Magic Bullet,” read a headline about the Redux approval in The Washington Post
When work began in the 2000s to create a Medicare pharmacy benefit, lawmakers and congressional staff had a pool of about $400 billion available to establish what became the Part D program, Joel White, a former House staffer who helped draft the law, told this news organization in an email exchange.
Given the state of obesity research at the time, it seemed to make sense to exclude weight-loss medications, wrote Mr. White. Mr. White is now chief executive of the consulting firm Horizon, which has clients in the drug industry including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
“Now we know that obesity is a chronic disease of epidemic proportions. Decades of research have produced a series of advances in the way we understand and treat obesity. While scientists and many who work directly with those impacted by this epidemic understand how treatments have advanced, the law lags behind,” Mr. White said.
XXXCurrent payment policies for obesity treatments are based on “outdated information and ongoing misperception,” he noted. “While Part D has been a resounding success, our Medicare approach to obesity is not.”
“In addition, it makes no sense that Medicare covers the most drastic procedure (bariatric surgery) but not less-invasive, effective treatments,” he added. “We should have long ago lifted restrictions based on advances in science and medicine.”
Overcoming the stigma
Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, agreed and hopes that the new ICER report will help more patients secure needed medications, raising a “call to arms” about the need for better coverage of obesity drugs.
Dr. Kahan is director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, a private clinic in Washington, and chair of the clinical committee for The Obesity Society. He also served as a member of a policy roundtable that ICER convened as part of research on the report on obesity drugs. Dr. Kahan, who also serves on the faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, has received fees from drug makers such as Eli Lilly.
The ICER report may help what Dr. Kahan described as well-founded caution about obesity treatments in general.
“When it comes to weight loss, there are all of these magical treatments that are sold on social media and traditional media. There are a lot of bad actors in terms of people calling themselves experts and gurus and promising all kinds of crazy stuff,” said Dr. Kahan.
And there are long-standing stigmas about obesity, he stressed.
“That underlies a lot of the backward policies, including poor coverage for medications and the noncoverage by Medicare,” Dr. Kahan said. “There’s a societal ingrained set of beliefs and misperceptions and biases. That takes time to unwind, and I think we’re on the way, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Lifestyle changes not enough to tackle obesity
AHIP (formerly America’s Health Insurance Plans) told this news organization its members consider ICER reports when making decisions about which products to cover. “And health plans already cover obesity treatments that they consider medically necessary,” said David Allen, an AHIP spokesperson.
“It is important to note that every treatment does not work for every patient, and many patients experience adverse events and may discontinue treatment,” he added in an email. “Health insurance providers play an important role in helping [health care] providers and patients identify the treatment options that are most likely to be effective as well as affordable.”
Separately, the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen cautioned against liraglutide on its Worst Pills, Best Pills website. In its view, the drug is minimally effective and has many dangerous adverse effects, which are even more frequent with the higher-dose weight-loss version (a lower-dose version is approved for type 2 diabetes).
“There is currently no medication that can be used safely to achieve weight loss effortlessly and without dangerous adverse effects,” the group said. “Rather than focus on losing weight by turning to risky drugs, overweight and obese adults seeking to achieve better health should make reasonable and sustainable changes to their lifestyle, such as eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise.”
Yet, many people find there is little help available for making lifestyle changes, and some patients and physicians say these modifications by themselves are not enough.
“The vast majority of people with obesity cannot achieve sustained weight loss through diet and exercise alone,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in an Oct. 20 statement. “As such, obesity, and its resulting physical health, mental health, and social burdens, is not a choice or failing, but a medical condition.”
The focus should now be on assuring that effective medications “are priced in alignment with their benefits so that they are accessible and affordable across U.S. society,” Dr. Rind urges.
‘My own demise with a fork and knife’
ICER sought public feedback on a draft version of the report before finalizing it.
In their comments on ICER’s work, several pharmaceutical researchers and Novo Nordisk questioned the calculations used in making judgments about the value of obesity drugs. In a statement, Novo Nordisk told this news organization that the company’s view is that ICER’s modeling “does not adequately address the real-world complexities of obesity, and consequently underestimates the health and societal impact medical treatments can have.”
Commenters also dug into aspects of ICER’s calculations, including ones that consider quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). ICER describes QALY as an academic standard for measuring how well all different types of medical treatments can extend or improve patients’ lives. In an explainer on its website, ICER says this metric has served as a fundamental component of cost-effectiveness analyses in the United States and around the world for more than 30 years.
ICER and drug makers have been at odds for some time, with PhRMA having criticized the nonprofit group. A 2020 Reuters article detailed public relations strategies used by firms paid by drug makers to raise questions about ICER’s work. Critics accuse it of allying with insurers.
ICER’s list of its recent financial supporters includes Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, but also many other groups, such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The public comments on the ICER report also include one from an unidentified woman who wrote of her past struggles to lose weight.
She said her health plan wouldn’t cover behavioral programs or semaglutide as a weight-loss drug but did cover it eventually because of signs that she had developed insulin resistance. The patient said the drug worked for her, whereas other approaches to control weight had failed.
“To put it simply, I now experience hunger and satiety in a way that I can only assume people with normal metabolism do. I am 49 years old and approaching the age where serious comorbidities associated with obesity begin to manifest,” the patient wrote.
“I no longer worry about bringing about my own demise with a fork and knife because of misfiring hunger cues.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A report from a well-respected nonprofit group may bolster efforts to have Medicare, the largest U.S. purchaser of prescription drugs, cover obesity medicines, for which there has been accumulating evidence of significant benefit.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) released a report last month on obesity medicines, based on extensive review of research done to date and input from clinicians, drug-makers, and members of the public.
Of the treatments reviewed, the ICER report gave the best ratings to two Novo Nordisk products, a B+ for semaglutide (Wegovy) and a B for liraglutide (Saxenda), while also making the case for price cuts. At an annual U.S. net price estimated at $13,618, semaglutide exceeds what ICER considers typical cost-effectiveness thresholds. ICER suggested a benchmark annual price range for semaglutide of between $7,500 and $9,800.
The ICER report also directs insurers in general to provide more generous coverage of obesity medicines, with a specific recommendation for the U.S. Congress to pass a pending bill known as the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021. The bill would undo a restriction on weight-loss drugs in the Medicare Part D plans, which covered about 49 million people last year. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD, (R-La.) have repeatedly introduced versions of the bill since 2013.
“In both chambers of Congress and with bipartisan support, we’ve pushed to expand Medicare coverage of additional therapies and medications to treat obesity,” Sen. Cassidy said in an email. “This report confirms what we’ve worked on for nearly a decade – our legislation will help improve lives.”
The current House version of the bill has the backing of more than a third of the members of that chamber, with 113 Democratic and 40 Republican cosponsors. The Senate version has 22 sponsors.
Changing views
The ICER report comes amid a broader change in how clinicians view obesity.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is readying a new Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Pediatric Obesity that will mark a major shift in approach. Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, described it as a “sea change,” with obesity now seen as “a chronic, refractory, relapsing disease,” for which watchful waiting is no longer appropriate.
But the field of obesity treatment looked quite different in the early 2000s when Congress worked on a plan to add a pharmacy benefit to Medicare.
The deliberate omission of obesity medicine in the Medicare Part D benefit reflected both the state of science at the time and U.S. experience with a dangerous weight-loss drug combo in the late 1990s.
Initial expectations for weight-loss pills were high after the Food and Drug Administration cleared dexfenfluramine HCl (Redux) in 1996, which was part of the popular fen-phen combination. “Newly Approved Diet Drug Promises to Help Millions of Obese Americans – But Is No Magic Bullet,” read a headline about the Redux approval in The Washington Post
When work began in the 2000s to create a Medicare pharmacy benefit, lawmakers and congressional staff had a pool of about $400 billion available to establish what became the Part D program, Joel White, a former House staffer who helped draft the law, told this news organization in an email exchange.
Given the state of obesity research at the time, it seemed to make sense to exclude weight-loss medications, wrote Mr. White. Mr. White is now chief executive of the consulting firm Horizon, which has clients in the drug industry including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
“Now we know that obesity is a chronic disease of epidemic proportions. Decades of research have produced a series of advances in the way we understand and treat obesity. While scientists and many who work directly with those impacted by this epidemic understand how treatments have advanced, the law lags behind,” Mr. White said.
XXXCurrent payment policies for obesity treatments are based on “outdated information and ongoing misperception,” he noted. “While Part D has been a resounding success, our Medicare approach to obesity is not.”
“In addition, it makes no sense that Medicare covers the most drastic procedure (bariatric surgery) but not less-invasive, effective treatments,” he added. “We should have long ago lifted restrictions based on advances in science and medicine.”
Overcoming the stigma
Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, agreed and hopes that the new ICER report will help more patients secure needed medications, raising a “call to arms” about the need for better coverage of obesity drugs.
Dr. Kahan is director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, a private clinic in Washington, and chair of the clinical committee for The Obesity Society. He also served as a member of a policy roundtable that ICER convened as part of research on the report on obesity drugs. Dr. Kahan, who also serves on the faculty at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, has received fees from drug makers such as Eli Lilly.
The ICER report may help what Dr. Kahan described as well-founded caution about obesity treatments in general.
“When it comes to weight loss, there are all of these magical treatments that are sold on social media and traditional media. There are a lot of bad actors in terms of people calling themselves experts and gurus and promising all kinds of crazy stuff,” said Dr. Kahan.
And there are long-standing stigmas about obesity, he stressed.
“That underlies a lot of the backward policies, including poor coverage for medications and the noncoverage by Medicare,” Dr. Kahan said. “There’s a societal ingrained set of beliefs and misperceptions and biases. That takes time to unwind, and I think we’re on the way, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Lifestyle changes not enough to tackle obesity
AHIP (formerly America’s Health Insurance Plans) told this news organization its members consider ICER reports when making decisions about which products to cover. “And health plans already cover obesity treatments that they consider medically necessary,” said David Allen, an AHIP spokesperson.
“It is important to note that every treatment does not work for every patient, and many patients experience adverse events and may discontinue treatment,” he added in an email. “Health insurance providers play an important role in helping [health care] providers and patients identify the treatment options that are most likely to be effective as well as affordable.”
Separately, the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen cautioned against liraglutide on its Worst Pills, Best Pills website. In its view, the drug is minimally effective and has many dangerous adverse effects, which are even more frequent with the higher-dose weight-loss version (a lower-dose version is approved for type 2 diabetes).
“There is currently no medication that can be used safely to achieve weight loss effortlessly and without dangerous adverse effects,” the group said. “Rather than focus on losing weight by turning to risky drugs, overweight and obese adults seeking to achieve better health should make reasonable and sustainable changes to their lifestyle, such as eating a healthy diet and getting regular exercise.”
Yet, many people find there is little help available for making lifestyle changes, and some patients and physicians say these modifications by themselves are not enough.
“The vast majority of people with obesity cannot achieve sustained weight loss through diet and exercise alone,” said David Rind, MD, chief medical officer of ICER, in an Oct. 20 statement. “As such, obesity, and its resulting physical health, mental health, and social burdens, is not a choice or failing, but a medical condition.”
The focus should now be on assuring that effective medications “are priced in alignment with their benefits so that they are accessible and affordable across U.S. society,” Dr. Rind urges.
‘My own demise with a fork and knife’
ICER sought public feedback on a draft version of the report before finalizing it.
In their comments on ICER’s work, several pharmaceutical researchers and Novo Nordisk questioned the calculations used in making judgments about the value of obesity drugs. In a statement, Novo Nordisk told this news organization that the company’s view is that ICER’s modeling “does not adequately address the real-world complexities of obesity, and consequently underestimates the health and societal impact medical treatments can have.”
Commenters also dug into aspects of ICER’s calculations, including ones that consider quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). ICER describes QALY as an academic standard for measuring how well all different types of medical treatments can extend or improve patients’ lives. In an explainer on its website, ICER says this metric has served as a fundamental component of cost-effectiveness analyses in the United States and around the world for more than 30 years.
ICER and drug makers have been at odds for some time, with PhRMA having criticized the nonprofit group. A 2020 Reuters article detailed public relations strategies used by firms paid by drug makers to raise questions about ICER’s work. Critics accuse it of allying with insurers.
ICER’s list of its recent financial supporters includes Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, but also many other groups, such as the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The public comments on the ICER report also include one from an unidentified woman who wrote of her past struggles to lose weight.
She said her health plan wouldn’t cover behavioral programs or semaglutide as a weight-loss drug but did cover it eventually because of signs that she had developed insulin resistance. The patient said the drug worked for her, whereas other approaches to control weight had failed.
“To put it simply, I now experience hunger and satiety in a way that I can only assume people with normal metabolism do. I am 49 years old and approaching the age where serious comorbidities associated with obesity begin to manifest,” the patient wrote.
“I no longer worry about bringing about my own demise with a fork and knife because of misfiring hunger cues.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. dementia rate drops as education, women’s employment rises
new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.
The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.
The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.
The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.
The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.
A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.
“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.
“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.
The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.
The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.
The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.
The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.
The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.
The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.
A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.
“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.
“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.
The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.
The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.
The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.
The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.
The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.
The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.
A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.
“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.
“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.
The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.
The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From PNAS
New Medicare physician fee schedule leaves docs fuming over pay cuts
The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).
But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.
The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.
That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.
A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.
For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.
Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.
“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.
He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
Chronic budget battles
Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.
MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.
A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.
And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.
Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.
In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.
“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
Policy changes
But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.
CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.
“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.
CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.
It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.
Other major policy changes include:
Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.
Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.
CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.
CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).
But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.
The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.
That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.
A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.
For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.
Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.
“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.
He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
Chronic budget battles
Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.
MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.
A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.
And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.
Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.
In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.
“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
Policy changes
But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.
CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.
“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.
CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.
It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.
Other major policy changes include:
Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.
Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.
CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.
CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).
But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.
The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.
That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.
A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.
For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.
Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.
“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.
He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
Chronic budget battles
Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.
MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.
A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.
And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.
Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.
In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.
“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.
“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
Policy changes
But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.
CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.
“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.
CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.
It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.
Other major policy changes include:
Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.
Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.
CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.
CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.