Dermatology News

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With healthcare costs rising and payer reimbursements dwindling, many physicians are focusing even more on collecting outstanding patient balances.

Medical credit cards can be a popular choice to fill this gap because doctors get reimbursed upfront while patients receive special financing offers and the care they seek or need.

But, in recent months, federal officials have questioned whether these arrangements are genuinely win-win or if the cards prey on low-income and vulnerable individuals and warrant tighter regulatory oversight.

In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Treasury announced an inquiry into medical credit cards. The agencies sought public comments from patients and providers to determine how much they are used.

Medical credit cards typically offer 0% or low-interest terms ranging from 6 to 24 months. Minimum monthly payments are required, often as low as $30 and not usually enough to pay the balance by the end of the promotional period.

After the introductory rate, card issuers may charge interest rates approaching 30% — not just on the remaining balance but on the original amount financed, adding considerably to total out-of-pocket costs.

Ophthalmologist Michael A. Brusco, MD, FACS, specializes in laser-assisted in situ keratomileuses and vision correction at his practice in the greater Washington, DC, area. He told this news organization that nearly all his patients are self-paying, and just under half utilize one of two medical credit cards he offers through third-party vendors, CareCredit and Alphaeon Credit.

“We are clear with our patients that it is interest-free only if they make all payments on time, and if they don’t, then the penalties and fees skyrocket,” Dr. Brusco said.

Patients pay no interest if they make the minimum monthly payments and pay the entire balance by the end of the term. Brusco said those who qualify and abide by those conditions can benefit from spreading healthcare expenses over several months and reducing the stress and financial strain associated with a larger, one-time payment.

He acknowledged that deferred interest can be problematic if patients are caught unaware but said his staff has received training from both vendors on clearly explaining the plans to patients. If someone doesn’t think they can pay off the balance in the timeframe, he suggests they pursue an alternative payment method.

Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy organization, has joined 60 other groups urging the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards.

They say that patients don’t understand what they are signing up for due to comments like these:

“Even though I’ve made monthly automatic payments on my account, as long as I have any balance on my account by [the end of the promotion], I’d be charged a 26.99% interest rate on the whole medical bill of [$2700].”

“I had nearly [$700] of interest that had accumulated within 4 months…based on one [$2000] charge. The employees at medical offices are selling a product they know little about without fully disclosing the terms and conditions to their patients.”

Historically, patients who apply for the cards have tended to use them to finance cosmetic or other lifestyle medicine procedures, but the CFPB said patients increasingly rely on them for routine and emergency care, which may contribute to growing medical debts and collections balances.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns that doctors may direct patients toward these financial arrangements instead of properly screening them for assistance programs or pursuing the sometimes arduous claims process to capture reimbursement from payers.
 

Growth of Medical Credit Card Market

One of the most widely used cards, CareCredit, is owned by Synchrony Bank and accepted at over 260,000 locations. Beyond private practices, the vendor has multiyear deals with over 300 hospitals, including Kaiser Permanente and the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite growing popularity and acceptance within the medical community, the cards may work well for some, but not all, patients.

According to a CFPB report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to stick to the terms paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period. Three quarters of CareCredit consumers pay no interest, the organization reported.

Healthcare costs are likely driving demand for medical credit cards. In a recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund, almost half of respondents said it was very or somewhat difficult to afford care even when having insurance coverage through an employer, individual, or government plan. Consumers in the survey cited the high costs as a reason why they delayed or skipped care and prescription medication in the past year, including 29% of those with employer coverage and 42% with Medicare.

These dynamics can leave doctors between a rock and a hard place, said Alan P. Sager, PhD, a professor of health law, policy, and management at Boston University School of Public Health. He told this news organization that medical credit cards can keep cash flowing for doctors and provide elective and necessary care for patients, but the double-digit interest rates outside of the promotional periods can put patients at risk of bankruptcy. He views them as a short-term solution to a more significant problem.

“What doctors need and deserve is patients who have full coverage so that there are no medical debts and no need for medical credit cards,” said Dr. Sager.
 

Doctor Groups Weigh In

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), representing more than 15,000 medical groups, said in its public comments that Medicare cuts and staffing and inflation challenges have made running a profitable practice challenging, particularly for rural and less-resourced offices.

The organization said medical credit cards with transparent terms and conditions can help patients afford care and keep practice doors open amid rising operational costs. However, MGMA worries that the CFPB’s inquiry could “perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for payment not to be rendered immediately after clinical services are provided, and it’s ok that payments are often subject to significant delays.”

Meanwhile, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) has endorsed CareCredit for over 20 years. In response to the CFPB’s request for information, the association said it supports medical credit cards that offer promotional low- or no-interest terms.

Steven Williams, MD, ASPS president, told this news organization that patients appreciate multiple payment options and the flexibility to move forward with care on short notice. Still, he said that it requires due diligence on everyone’s part.

“Lenders have a responsibility to educate their customers, and it’s critical that lending products have full disclosure in plain and clear language. And with any substantial purchase, patients need to analyze how much it adds to the bottom line,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a victory for clinicians who fought to keep working regardless of age, a San Diego–based medical group has agreed to settle a federal investigation by paying nearly $7 million to physicians subject to their employer’s policy requiring them to quit at age 75.

In a statement, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said the settlement will resolve an age and disability discrimination charge filed against Scripps Clinic Medical Group. The medical group is part of Scripps Health, a major provider of medical services in the San Diego region that operates five local hospitals.

The EECO said it found “reasonable cause” that the medical group violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

US health systems are facing lawsuits that claim they’ve engaged in age discrimination by requiring physicians to take cognitive tests when they reach specific ages.

The Scripps medical group’s mandatory retirement policy began in 2016 and was consistent with California law, which specifically allows for mandatory retirement of physicians in medical groups at age 70, Scripps said in a statement, adding that it rescinded the policy in 2018.

“This policy was put in place to enhance patient safety,” Scripps said. “The EEOC took the position while such a policy is expressly legal under California law; it is not allowed under federal law.”

The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states that employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” There are exceptions, however, in cases of public safety for professions such as air traffic controllers.

California law has a similar provision banning age discrimination, but it makes an exception for “any employee who has attained 70 years of age and is a physician employed by a professional medical corporation, the articles or bylaws of which provide for compulsory retirement.”

In 2020, an estimated 12% of US licensed physicians were at least 70 years old — more than 120,000 in total — up from 9% in a 2010, according to a Federation of State Medical Boards 2021 report.

Scripps Clinic Medical Group settled with the EEOC “without any admission of fault or wrongdoing to avoid the continued expense and distraction of litigation,” its statement said. It agreed to pay $6.875 million to the affected physicians.

When asked about how many physicians were affected by the policy, a Scripps human resources official said, “this was disputed but very few. The policy was only in effect for 2 years, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, by age 75, most doctors have retired. And those who have not almost always have voluntarily limited their practice.”

The Scripps official didn’t respond to questions about the number of patients served by the medical group and how many physicians it employs.

According to the EEOC, the medical group has agreed to tell employees that the policy has been scrapped and must “clarify that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions, including termination, retirement, and terms and conditions of employment.”

Scripps Clinic Medical Group also agreed to require division and department heads, executive leadership, and human resources employees to be trained regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.