User login
Primary Care Physicians Track an Average of 57 Quality Measures for Value-Based Care Pay
A new analysis suggests one reason doctors are wary of value-based care arrangements: Overkill.
Researchers found that primary care physicians in one large integrated health system were required to track an average of 57 different quality measures across multiple insurers that linked outcomes to payments under value-based contracts.
Medicare contracts were the most likely to pile quality measures on physicians with an average of 13.42 measures vs 10.07 for commercial insurer contracts and 5.37 for Medicaid contracts, reported Claire Boone, PhD, of the University of Chicago in Illinois and Providence Research Network, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues in JAMA Health Forum. The analysis, which may be the first of its kind, tracked 890 primary care physicians from 2020 to 2022.
The average of 57 quality measures per physician was unexpectedly high, Dr. Boone said in an interview.
“The magnitude of that number surprised us,” Dr. Boone said. “Primary care physicians and their practices have a lot on their plate. Now we know that one of those things is a very large number of different quality metrics to pay attention to, measure, report on, and implement.
Value-based care programs use quality measures to evaluate how well clinicians are doing their jobs and adjust reimbursement accordingly. A payer, for example, may raise reimbursements if a clinician has higher numbers of patients who meet quality measure standards for depression screening or blood pressure.
Dr. Boone said her research group is studying the impact of quality measures and was surprised that data showed individual primary care physicians had to deal with a high number of value-based contracts.
The researchers tracked value-based contracts for 890 physicians (58.3% women, 41.7% men) in an unidentified West Coast Health system. (Several study authors work for the Providence Health System, which serves several Western States and Texas.) The average number of patients per physician was 1309.
The physicians were part of an average of 11.18 value-based contracts (commercial insurers, 49.50%; Medicaid, 21.49%; and Medicare, 29.01%). This number grew from 9.39 in 2020 to 12.26 in 2022. Quality measure data weren’t available for 29% of contracts.
Quality measures were considered unique if they referenced different conditions.
For example, colorectal cancer screening is unique from depression screening. The researchers also considered measures for the same condition unique if the target value differed — for example, blood pressure control defined as < 140/90 vs blood pressure control defined as < 130/80, Dr. Boone said.
Dr. Boone said she expected payers to coordinate quality measures.
“The fact that they largely are not is really the main finding of this paper. Without coordination, the use of value-based contracts and quality measures at scale leads to many unique measures being used. This may reflect the fact that there are so many important tasks to do in primary care, and there’s no consensus on which ones should be included in quality-based contracts.”
Ronald N. Adler, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the study offers something new — the quantification of quality measures.
He said in an interview that physicians deal with quality measures in different ways. Some clinicians “don’t really care,” and have an attitude of “this is not why I got into medicine.” But others “are very competitive around this, and it leads to a lot of a lot of stress. Trying to address 50-plus measures is impossible and demoralizing.”
The metrics may measure things like mammogram screening that are out of the physician’s control, Dr. Adler said. “I can recommend a mammogram, and my patient can choose not to do it. Or maybe my patient is homeless; she doesn’t have transportation, and it’s not a priority for her, even though she wants to do it.”
Patients may not take medication as prescribed, or they may be unable to afford it, he said. “Can they afford to eat healthy foods? Or is ramen all they can afford, and their sugars are through the roof? There are a lot of factors at play here that are independent of the quality of care provided by the doctor.”
As for his own approach, Dr. Adler said he worries about some measures more than others. “I’m very proactive about screening my patients for colon cancer and maybe a little less so about mammography.”
For colon cancer screening, “there are a lot of benefits and not that many harms as opposed to mammography, which has harms such as false positives and overdiagnosis of breast cancer.”
Dr. Adler is a member of the Quality Measure Alignment Taskforce in Massachusetts, which is trying to establish consensus on appropriate quality measures. But payer participation is voluntary. “Our health systems are too siloed ... so there is no readily available mechanism for enforcing such recommendations.”
Wayne Altman, MD, chair of Family Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, is also familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research. He said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t have to deal with more than 5-10 quality measures in total.
He pointed out that many measures don’t make sense in certain populations. Titrating blood pressure to < 140/90 isn’t ideal for elderly patients because aggressive control can send their blood pressure dangerously low. “They’re going to fall down, break a hip, and likely die within a year. You have to have the right population and be aware of unintended consequences.”
Still, Dr. Adler noted, there’s an important role for quality measures in healthcare.
“We need data to inform our quality improvement activities, but they need to be the right measures. People can’t respond reasonably to improve on 50-plus measures,” he said. “They need to be consolidated and prioritized. It would be really helpful if we could have a much lower number of measures that are meaningful, safe, and connect to things that matter.”
No funding has been reported. Dr. Boone disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Adler and Dr. Altman had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis suggests one reason doctors are wary of value-based care arrangements: Overkill.
Researchers found that primary care physicians in one large integrated health system were required to track an average of 57 different quality measures across multiple insurers that linked outcomes to payments under value-based contracts.
Medicare contracts were the most likely to pile quality measures on physicians with an average of 13.42 measures vs 10.07 for commercial insurer contracts and 5.37 for Medicaid contracts, reported Claire Boone, PhD, of the University of Chicago in Illinois and Providence Research Network, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues in JAMA Health Forum. The analysis, which may be the first of its kind, tracked 890 primary care physicians from 2020 to 2022.
The average of 57 quality measures per physician was unexpectedly high, Dr. Boone said in an interview.
“The magnitude of that number surprised us,” Dr. Boone said. “Primary care physicians and their practices have a lot on their plate. Now we know that one of those things is a very large number of different quality metrics to pay attention to, measure, report on, and implement.
Value-based care programs use quality measures to evaluate how well clinicians are doing their jobs and adjust reimbursement accordingly. A payer, for example, may raise reimbursements if a clinician has higher numbers of patients who meet quality measure standards for depression screening or blood pressure.
Dr. Boone said her research group is studying the impact of quality measures and was surprised that data showed individual primary care physicians had to deal with a high number of value-based contracts.
The researchers tracked value-based contracts for 890 physicians (58.3% women, 41.7% men) in an unidentified West Coast Health system. (Several study authors work for the Providence Health System, which serves several Western States and Texas.) The average number of patients per physician was 1309.
The physicians were part of an average of 11.18 value-based contracts (commercial insurers, 49.50%; Medicaid, 21.49%; and Medicare, 29.01%). This number grew from 9.39 in 2020 to 12.26 in 2022. Quality measure data weren’t available for 29% of contracts.
Quality measures were considered unique if they referenced different conditions.
For example, colorectal cancer screening is unique from depression screening. The researchers also considered measures for the same condition unique if the target value differed — for example, blood pressure control defined as < 140/90 vs blood pressure control defined as < 130/80, Dr. Boone said.
Dr. Boone said she expected payers to coordinate quality measures.
“The fact that they largely are not is really the main finding of this paper. Without coordination, the use of value-based contracts and quality measures at scale leads to many unique measures being used. This may reflect the fact that there are so many important tasks to do in primary care, and there’s no consensus on which ones should be included in quality-based contracts.”
Ronald N. Adler, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the study offers something new — the quantification of quality measures.
He said in an interview that physicians deal with quality measures in different ways. Some clinicians “don’t really care,” and have an attitude of “this is not why I got into medicine.” But others “are very competitive around this, and it leads to a lot of a lot of stress. Trying to address 50-plus measures is impossible and demoralizing.”
The metrics may measure things like mammogram screening that are out of the physician’s control, Dr. Adler said. “I can recommend a mammogram, and my patient can choose not to do it. Or maybe my patient is homeless; she doesn’t have transportation, and it’s not a priority for her, even though she wants to do it.”
Patients may not take medication as prescribed, or they may be unable to afford it, he said. “Can they afford to eat healthy foods? Or is ramen all they can afford, and their sugars are through the roof? There are a lot of factors at play here that are independent of the quality of care provided by the doctor.”
As for his own approach, Dr. Adler said he worries about some measures more than others. “I’m very proactive about screening my patients for colon cancer and maybe a little less so about mammography.”
For colon cancer screening, “there are a lot of benefits and not that many harms as opposed to mammography, which has harms such as false positives and overdiagnosis of breast cancer.”
Dr. Adler is a member of the Quality Measure Alignment Taskforce in Massachusetts, which is trying to establish consensus on appropriate quality measures. But payer participation is voluntary. “Our health systems are too siloed ... so there is no readily available mechanism for enforcing such recommendations.”
Wayne Altman, MD, chair of Family Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, is also familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research. He said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t have to deal with more than 5-10 quality measures in total.
He pointed out that many measures don’t make sense in certain populations. Titrating blood pressure to < 140/90 isn’t ideal for elderly patients because aggressive control can send their blood pressure dangerously low. “They’re going to fall down, break a hip, and likely die within a year. You have to have the right population and be aware of unintended consequences.”
Still, Dr. Adler noted, there’s an important role for quality measures in healthcare.
“We need data to inform our quality improvement activities, but they need to be the right measures. People can’t respond reasonably to improve on 50-plus measures,” he said. “They need to be consolidated and prioritized. It would be really helpful if we could have a much lower number of measures that are meaningful, safe, and connect to things that matter.”
No funding has been reported. Dr. Boone disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Adler and Dr. Altman had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis suggests one reason doctors are wary of value-based care arrangements: Overkill.
Researchers found that primary care physicians in one large integrated health system were required to track an average of 57 different quality measures across multiple insurers that linked outcomes to payments under value-based contracts.
Medicare contracts were the most likely to pile quality measures on physicians with an average of 13.42 measures vs 10.07 for commercial insurer contracts and 5.37 for Medicaid contracts, reported Claire Boone, PhD, of the University of Chicago in Illinois and Providence Research Network, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues in JAMA Health Forum. The analysis, which may be the first of its kind, tracked 890 primary care physicians from 2020 to 2022.
The average of 57 quality measures per physician was unexpectedly high, Dr. Boone said in an interview.
“The magnitude of that number surprised us,” Dr. Boone said. “Primary care physicians and their practices have a lot on their plate. Now we know that one of those things is a very large number of different quality metrics to pay attention to, measure, report on, and implement.
Value-based care programs use quality measures to evaluate how well clinicians are doing their jobs and adjust reimbursement accordingly. A payer, for example, may raise reimbursements if a clinician has higher numbers of patients who meet quality measure standards for depression screening or blood pressure.
Dr. Boone said her research group is studying the impact of quality measures and was surprised that data showed individual primary care physicians had to deal with a high number of value-based contracts.
The researchers tracked value-based contracts for 890 physicians (58.3% women, 41.7% men) in an unidentified West Coast Health system. (Several study authors work for the Providence Health System, which serves several Western States and Texas.) The average number of patients per physician was 1309.
The physicians were part of an average of 11.18 value-based contracts (commercial insurers, 49.50%; Medicaid, 21.49%; and Medicare, 29.01%). This number grew from 9.39 in 2020 to 12.26 in 2022. Quality measure data weren’t available for 29% of contracts.
Quality measures were considered unique if they referenced different conditions.
For example, colorectal cancer screening is unique from depression screening. The researchers also considered measures for the same condition unique if the target value differed — for example, blood pressure control defined as < 140/90 vs blood pressure control defined as < 130/80, Dr. Boone said.
Dr. Boone said she expected payers to coordinate quality measures.
“The fact that they largely are not is really the main finding of this paper. Without coordination, the use of value-based contracts and quality measures at scale leads to many unique measures being used. This may reflect the fact that there are so many important tasks to do in primary care, and there’s no consensus on which ones should be included in quality-based contracts.”
Ronald N. Adler, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the research, said the study offers something new — the quantification of quality measures.
He said in an interview that physicians deal with quality measures in different ways. Some clinicians “don’t really care,” and have an attitude of “this is not why I got into medicine.” But others “are very competitive around this, and it leads to a lot of a lot of stress. Trying to address 50-plus measures is impossible and demoralizing.”
The metrics may measure things like mammogram screening that are out of the physician’s control, Dr. Adler said. “I can recommend a mammogram, and my patient can choose not to do it. Or maybe my patient is homeless; she doesn’t have transportation, and it’s not a priority for her, even though she wants to do it.”
Patients may not take medication as prescribed, or they may be unable to afford it, he said. “Can they afford to eat healthy foods? Or is ramen all they can afford, and their sugars are through the roof? There are a lot of factors at play here that are independent of the quality of care provided by the doctor.”
As for his own approach, Dr. Adler said he worries about some measures more than others. “I’m very proactive about screening my patients for colon cancer and maybe a little less so about mammography.”
For colon cancer screening, “there are a lot of benefits and not that many harms as opposed to mammography, which has harms such as false positives and overdiagnosis of breast cancer.”
Dr. Adler is a member of the Quality Measure Alignment Taskforce in Massachusetts, which is trying to establish consensus on appropriate quality measures. But payer participation is voluntary. “Our health systems are too siloed ... so there is no readily available mechanism for enforcing such recommendations.”
Wayne Altman, MD, chair of Family Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, is also familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research. He said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t have to deal with more than 5-10 quality measures in total.
He pointed out that many measures don’t make sense in certain populations. Titrating blood pressure to < 140/90 isn’t ideal for elderly patients because aggressive control can send their blood pressure dangerously low. “They’re going to fall down, break a hip, and likely die within a year. You have to have the right population and be aware of unintended consequences.”
Still, Dr. Adler noted, there’s an important role for quality measures in healthcare.
“We need data to inform our quality improvement activities, but they need to be the right measures. People can’t respond reasonably to improve on 50-plus measures,” he said. “They need to be consolidated and prioritized. It would be really helpful if we could have a much lower number of measures that are meaningful, safe, and connect to things that matter.”
No funding has been reported. Dr. Boone disclosed a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Adler and Dr. Altman had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA HEALTH FORUM
No Surprises Act: Private Equity Scores Big in Arbitrations
Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds.
The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care.
Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.
With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.
And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price.
Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care.
Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels.
A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it.
The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.
Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.
About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year.
Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.
Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.
Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.
Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”
Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”
It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said.
Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”
Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.
Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”
In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”
The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds.
The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care.
Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.
With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.
And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price.
Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care.
Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels.
A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it.
The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.
Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.
About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year.
Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.
Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.
Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.
Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”
Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”
It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said.
Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”
Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.
Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”
In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”
The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds.
The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care.
Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.
With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.
And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price.
Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care.
Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels.
A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it.
The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.
Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.
About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year.
Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.
Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.
Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.
Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”
Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”
It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said.
Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”
Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.
Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”
In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”
The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Baghdad to Boston: The Making of a Blood Cancer Specialist
Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.
In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.
Question: Where did you grow up?
Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.
Question: What happened to your college friend?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.
Question: What do you think went wrong?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.
Question: How did this experience change your career path?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”
Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?
Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.
Question: What happened next?
Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”
Question: What was that experience like for the patient?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.
Question: How did the patient fare?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.
Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?
Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].
Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?
Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.
Question: What did you learn?
Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).
Question: What’s next for your research in this area?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.
Question: What are you hoping to understand?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.
Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.
In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.
Question: Where did you grow up?
Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.
Question: What happened to your college friend?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.
Question: What do you think went wrong?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.
Question: How did this experience change your career path?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”
Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?
Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.
Question: What happened next?
Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”
Question: What was that experience like for the patient?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.
Question: How did the patient fare?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.
Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?
Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].
Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?
Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.
Question: What did you learn?
Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).
Question: What’s next for your research in this area?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.
Question: What are you hoping to understand?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.
Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Today, she practices hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is a leading advocate for palliative care in oncology.
In an interview, Dr. El-Jawahri spoke about her journey from Baghdad to Boston and the future of palliative medicine in hematology.
Question: Where did you grow up?
Dr. El-Jawahri: My family is from Baghdad, Iraq, and I was born there. We moved to the States when I was 14. I came to Michigan not speaking a word of English. My parents — my father is a mechanical engineer, and my mom is a computer engineer — chose to live in a very white neighborhood in Farmington Hills, in the suburbs of Detroit. The neighborhood did not have any immigrants or Arab Americans. There are a lot of Arab Americans in Michigan, but they chose for me not to hang out with them early on so that I could learn the language. It was a really good choice.
Question: What happened to your college friend?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She had a brain tumor and ended up receiving intensive care at the end of life. We had a lot of conversations about her wishes and desires, but none of those were honored. Her ending was not something that she wanted, nor did it honor her memory.
Question: What do you think went wrong?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was getting treatment for her family’s sake. The idea of losing her was too hard for them. I remember vividly the conversations where she would say, “I just hope I don’t end up in the hospital at the end of life.” We had that conversation explicitly. But because we were young, her family was very involved in her care. A lot of the decision-making was very complicated.
Question: How did this experience change your career path?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I went into medicine specifically to become an oncologist and cure cancer. The naive 20-year-old in me said, “Nobody should die this miserable death. I’m going to go in, and I’m going to cure it.”
Question: How did palliative medicine become your major focus?
Dr. El-Jawahri: During my first year at Harvard Medical School, I took a course that’s called “Living With Life-Threatening Illness.” It allows medical students to spend their entire first year getting to know a patient living with a serious illness. We’d spend weekly coffee or lunch breaks with them, where we’d hear about their experiences. After every weekly meeting with a patient, we also had a group meeting with several students and group facilitators to talk about — and process — the interactions we had with patients. I was assigned a woman who was living with metastatic breast cancer. I was also introduced to the field of palliative care and how it helps patients manage complex symptoms and process and cope with a difficult diagnosis. It also cultivates the understanding to make informed decisions about their care. That’s when I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life — figure out ways to integrate these palliative and supportive care concepts and improve the lived experience of patients and families within the oncology setting.
Question: What happened next?
Dr. El-Jawahri: When I was a first-year intern, I went to residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. I was on an oncology service and admitted a young college student who was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. She was an athlete, and every time she went up the stairs to her dorm, she was getting very short of breath. She went to a walk-in clinic because when you’re 20 and you’re healthy, you don’t think you need anything. They did some blood work, and 2 hours later, they called her and said, “You probably have leukemia. You need to go to the emergency department immediately.” There she saw an emergency doctor who said, “You will be admitted to the hospital. You have leukemia. I’m calling an oncologist, and you’ll probably have to start chemotherapy within the next day or two.”
Question: What was that experience like for the patient?
Dr. El-Jawahri: I’ve never seen someone so scared. The first question she asked me was about her family, who were from North Carolina. She said, “It feels like everybody thinks that I’m dying. Do you think my family will have time to get here?” They were in a car driving over. This is not a unique story in this population. Unfortunately, these patients experience the most traumatic way of being diagnosed and probably the most traumatic experience in oncology. They’re being abducted into a hospital environment, losing all control and starting immediate therapy. Then, for the first 4-6 weeks, they experience immense toxicity, side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis, where they have painful mouth and throat sores that require intravenous pain medications. This causes real posttraumatic stress. After seeing that woman, I made the decision to work in leukemia and transplants to try to make things a little bit better for these patients.
Question: How did the patient fare?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She actually did great and was cured of her disease. Many of our patients with leukemia, especially younger ones, do well in terms of survival. But they struggle with the trauma of their diagnosis and the distress of the acute treatment period. Even in the curative setting, helping patients to cope with a traumatic diagnosis can have a big impact on their quality of life, how they feel, and their long-term outcomes in terms of psychological stress, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. But so often, our patients with leukemia are not offered palliative care and supportive care because they’re going to be cured.
Question: What is an important lesson from your research into palliative care in hematology?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We can make things better for patients and families by integrating palliative care clinicians into the care of patients. Patients receiving palliative care are more likely to document their end-of-life preferences and discuss them with their clinicians, and they’re less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life. When you ask patients with cancer where do they want to die, many of patients say, “I want to die at home. I don’t want to be in a hospital.” A lot of the work I’m doing now is focused on creating digital apps with components of palliative care and supportive care interventions. Patients can administer these interventions to themselves and learn how to effectively cope and deal with their illness. Some patients may do well with a digital app, but others may actually need the in-person touch. Some may need a hybrid approach. One of the other future directions for us is thinking about how we optimize supportive care interventions. Which ones do we give to which patient?
Question: Considering all that you’ve learned since college, how do you think your sick friend should have been treated?
Dr. El-Jawahri: She was neither introduced to the term palliative care nor to palliative care specialists. Now the standard of care — especially in patients with advanced cancer — is to integrate palliative care clinicians early in the course of illness. We would have loved for her to have a palliative care clinician who didn’t replace the oncologist but rather helped the patient, family, and oncologist communicate more effectively with one another. We hear all the time from patients who say different things to their oncologist than to their palliative care clinician. It’s not like my friend wasn’t able to communicate with her oncologist. But maybe part of it was that she wanted to not disappoint her oncologist [by ending treatment].
Question: Could you tell me about the research you presented at ASCO 2024 regarding 115 adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome who were receiving non-intensive chemotherapy?
Dr. El-Jawahri: These patients receive therapy that requires frequent clinic visits and often substantially impairs their quality of life. We know this population often does not engage in any timely discussion with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences. This multisite randomized clinical trial assigned patients to receive usual oncology care [with palliative care consultations only upon request] vs to see palliative care clinicians monthly in the outpatient setting and twice weekly every time they were hospitalized. The intervention focused on how to help patients manage their symptoms and end-of-life communication in particular. The primary outcome of the study was time from the documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death.
Question: What did you learn?
Dr. El-Jawahri: This is one of the first studies to highlight the impact of palliative care integration on end-of-life care preferences and discussions and documentation in this population. Patients receiving the palliative care intervention were much more likely to discuss their end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs 68.4%; P < .001). More importantly, those receiving the intervention had a much longer time from documentation of end-of-life care preferences to death. On average, patients in the palliative care intervention group vs the usual care group had a mean of 41 vs 1.5 days from documentation of their preferences to death (P < .001). In the intervention group, these conversations were happening early enough for patients to plan, talk to their families, and discuss their wishes. In the usual care group, they were happening acutely while these patients were dying. We also learned that patients receiving palliative care intervention were less likely to be hospitalized at the end of life (70.6% vs 91.9%; P = .031) and had better quality of life (138.6 vs 125.5; P = .010).
Question: What’s next for your research in this area?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We are doing a large-scale randomized, comparative effectiveness trial of specialty palliative care vs primary palliative care in 11,150 patients with acute myeloid leukemia across 20 institutions in the United States. We expect results in 2028.
Question: What are you hoping to understand?
Dr. El-Jawahri: We will never have enough specialty palliative care clinicians to take care of all patients with serious illness. As a result, we have to learn how palliative care works: How does it improve outcomes? How do we potentially take what palliative care clinicians do and try to integrate it into regular oncology practice? A lot of the work that I’m excited about now regards what we call primary palliative care. How do we train oncology clinicians to incorporate palliative care skills in their practices so we’re able to better meet the needs of our patients and their families? What we’d love to understand from future research is which patient populations need specialty palliative care and which patients can do just fine with an oncology clinician who has a lot of good palliative care skills integrated into their practice.
Dr. El-Jawahri disclosed consulting for Incyte and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SUNY Downstate Emergency Medicine Doc Charged With $1.5M Fraud
In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices,
Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”
Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.
Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.
The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.
“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.
SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.
Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’
David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”
William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).
Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).
The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud
What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”
Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”
One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices,
Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”
Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.
Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.
The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.
“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.
SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.
Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’
David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”
William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).
Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).
The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud
What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”
Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”
One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case that spotlights the importance of comprehensive financial controls in medical offices,
Michael Lucchesi, MD, who had served as chairman of Emergency Medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York City, was arraigned on July 9 and pleaded not guilty. Dr. Lucchesi’s attorney, Earl Ward, did not respond to messages from this news organization, but he told the New York Post that “the funds he used were not stolen funds.”
Dr. Lucchesi, who’s in his late 60s, faces nine counts of first- and second-degree grand larceny, first-degree falsifying business records, and third-degree criminal tax fraud. According to a press statement from the district attorney of Kings County, which encompasses the borough of Brooklyn, Dr. Lucchesi is accused of using his clinical practice’s business card for cash advances (about $115,000), high-end pet care ($176,000), personal travel ($348,000), gym membership and personal training ($109,000), catering ($52,000), tuition payments for his children ($46,000), and other expenses such as online shopping, flowers, liquor, and electronics.
Most of the alleged pet care spending — $120,000 — went to the Green Leaf Pet Resort, which has two locations in New Jersey, including one with “56 acres of nature and lots of tail wagging.” Some of the alleged spending on gym membership was at the New York Sports Clubs chain, where monthly membership tops out at $139.99.
The alleged spending occurred between 2016 and 2023 and was discovered by SUNY Downstate during an audit. Dr. Lucchesi reportedly left his position at the hospital, where he made $399,712 in 2022 as a professor, according to public records.
“As a high-ranking doctor at this vital healthcare institution, this defendant was entrusted with access to significant funds, which he allegedly exploited, stealing more than 1 million dollars to pay for a lavish lifestyle,” District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said in a statement.
SUNY Downstate is in a fight for its life amid efforts by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to shut it down. According to The New York Times, it is the only state-run hospital in New York City.
Dr. Lucchesi, who had previously served as the hospital’s chief medical officer and acting head, was released without bail. His next court date is September 25, 2024.
Size of Alleged Theft Is ‘Very Unusual’
David P. Weber, JD, DBA, a professor and fraud specialist at Salisbury University, Salisbury, Maryland, told this news organization that the fraudulent use of a business or purchase credit card is a form of embezzlement and “one of the most frequently seen types of frauds against organizations.”
William J. Kresse, JD, MSA, CPA/CFF, who studies fraud at Governors State University in University Park, Illinois, noted in an interview with this news organization that the high amount of alleged fraud in this case is “very unusual,” as is the period it is said to have occurred (over 6 years).
Mr. Kresse highlighted a 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which found that the median fraud loss in healthcare, on the basis of 117 cases, is $100,000. The most common form of fraud in the industry is corruption (47%), followed by billing (38%), noncash theft such as inventory (22%), and expense reimbursement (21%).
The details of the current case suggest that “SUNY Downstate had weak or insufficient internal controls to prevent this type of fraud,” Salisbury University’s Mr. Weber said. “However, research also makes clear that the tenure and position of the perpetrator play a significant role in the size of the fraud. Internal controls are supposed to apply to all employees, but the higher in the organization the perpetrator is, the easier it can be to engage in fraud.”
Even Small Medical Offices Can Act to Prevent Fraud
What can be done to prevent this kind of fraud? “Each employee should be required to submit actual receipts or scanned copies, and the reimbursement requests should be reviewed and inputted by a separate department or office of the organization to ensure that the expenses are legitimate,” Mr. Weber said. “In addition, all credit card statements should be available for review by the organization either simultaneously with the bill going to the employee or available for audit or review at any time without notification to the employee. Expenses that are in certain categories should be prohibited automatically and coded to the card so such a charge is rejected by the credit card bank.”
Smaller businesses — like many medical practices — may not have the manpower to handle these roles. In that case, Mr. Weber said, “The key is segregation or separation of duties. The bookkeeper cannot be the person receiving the bank statements, the payments from patients, and the invoices from vendors. There needs to be at least one other person in the loop to have some level of control.”
One strategy, he said, “is that the practice should institute a policy that only the doctor or owner of the practice can receive the mail, not the bookkeeper. Even if the practice leader does not actually review the bank statements, simply opening them before handing them off to the bookkeeper can provide a level of deterrence [since] the employee may get caught if someone else is reviewing the bank statements.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians Call Out Barriers in Addiction Care
Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.
Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. , reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
Lack of Priority in Addiction Care
In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”
As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.
According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.
The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
Challenges in Treating Addiction
The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”
Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.
The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”
The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.
Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”
In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”
Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”
Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.
Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. , reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
Lack of Priority in Addiction Care
In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”
As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.
According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.
The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
Challenges in Treating Addiction
The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”
Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.
The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”
The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.
Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”
In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”
Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”
Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.
Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. , reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
Lack of Priority in Addiction Care
In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”
As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.
According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.
The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
Challenges in Treating Addiction
The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”
Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.
The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”
The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.
Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”
In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”
Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”
Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASCO 2024: An Expert’s Top Hematology Highlights
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
In Prostate Cancer, Most Roads Lead to VA Pathway
The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.
“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.
“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”
The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.
“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.
In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.
Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.
Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.
Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”
Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.
Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.
Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”
The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.
“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.
“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”
The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.
“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.
In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.
Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.
Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.
Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”
Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.
Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.
Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”
The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.
“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.
“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”
The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.
“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.
In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.
Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.
Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.
Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”
Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.
Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.
Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”
Neck Pain in Migraine Is Common, Linked to More Disability
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
, an international, prospective, cross-sectional study finds.
Of 51,969 respondents with headache over the past year, the 27.9% with migraine were more likely to have neck pain than those with non-migraine headache (68.3% vs 36.1%, respectively, P < .001), reported Richard B. Lipton, MD, professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues in Headache.
Compared with other patients with migraine, those who also have neck pain have “greater disability, more psychiatric comorbidities, more allodynia, diminished quality of life, decreased work productivity, and reduced response to treatment,” Dr. Lipton said in an interview. “If patients don’t report [neck pain], it is probably worth asking about. And when patients have both migraine and neck pain, they may merit increased therapeutic attention.”
As Dr. Lipton noted, clinicians have long known that neck pain is common in migraine, although it’s been unclear how the two conditions are connected. “One possibility is that the neck pain is actually a manifestation of the migraine headache. Another possibility is that the neck pain is an independent factor unrelated to migraine headaches: Many people have migraine and cervical spine disease. And the third possibility is that neck pain may be an exacerbating factor, that cervical spine disease may make the migraine worse.”
Referred pain is a potential factor too, he said.
Assessing Migraine, Neck Pain, and Disability
The new study sought to better understand the role of neck pain in migraine, Dr. Lipton said.
For the CaMEO-I study, researchers surveyed 51,969 adults with headache via the Internet in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States from 2021-2022. Most of the 37,477 patients with non-migraine headaches were considered to have tension headaches.
Among the 14,492 patients with migraine, demographics were statistically similar among those who had neck pain or didn’t have it (average age = 40.7 and 42.1, 68.4% and 72.5% female, and average BMIs = 26.0 and 26.4, respectively).
Among patients in the US, 71.4% of patients with migraine reported neck pain versus 35.9% of those with non-migraine headaches. In Canada, the numbers were 69.5% and 37.5%, respectively.
Among all patients with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was more common among those with neck pain than those without neck pain (47.7% vs 28.9%, respectively, P < .001). Those with both migraine and neck pain had more symptom burden (P < .001), and 28.4% said neck pain was their most bothersome symptom. They also had a higher number of symptoms (P < .001).
Several conditions were more common among patients with migraine who reported neck pain versus those who didn’t (depression/anxiety, 40.2% vs 28.2%; anxiety, 41.2% vs 29.2%; and allodynia, 54.0% vs 36.6%, respectively, all P < 0.001). Those with neck pain were also more likely to have “poor acute treatment optimization” (61.1% vs 53.3%, respectively, P < .001).
Researchers noted limitations such as the use of self-reported data, the potential for selection bias, limitations regarding survey questions, and an inability to determine causation.
Clinical Messages
The findings suggest that patients with both migraine and neck pain have greater activation of second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, Dr. Lipton said.
He added that neck pain is often part of the migraine prodrome or the migraine attack itself, suggesting that it’s “part and parcel of the migraine attack.” However, neck pain may have another cause — such as degenerative disease of the neck — if it’s not directly connected to migraine, he added.
As for clinical messages from the study, “it’s quite likely that the neck pain is a primary manifestation of migraine. Migraine may well be the explanation in the absence of a reason to look further,” Dr. Lipton said.
If neck pain heralds a migraine, treating the prodrome with CGRP receptor antagonists (“gepants”) can be helpful, he said. He highlighted other preventive options include beta blockers, anti-epilepsy drugs, and monoclonal antibodies. There’s also anecdotal support for using botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic migraine and neck pain, he said.
In an interview, Mayo Clinic Arizona associate professor of neurology Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, who’s familiar with the study but did not take part in it, praised the research. The findings “help us to better understand the impact of living with neck pain if you are somebody with migraine,” she said. “It alerts us that we need to be more aggressive in how we manage that in patients.”
The study also emphasizes the importance of preventive medication in appropriate patients with migraine, especially those with neck pain who may be living with greater disability, she said. “About 13% of people with migraine are on a preventive medication, but about 40% are eligible. That’s an area where we have a big gap.”
Dr. Halker Singh added that non-medication strategies such as acupuncture and physical therapy can be helpful.
AbbVie funded the study. Dr. Lipton reports support for the study from AbbVie; research support paid to his institution from the Czap Foundation, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, S&L Marx Foundation, and US Food and Drug Administration; and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy’s (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock/options in Axon, Biohaven, CoolTech, and Manistee. Other authors report various disclosures.
Dr. Halker Singh is deputy editor of Headache, where the study was published, but wasn’t aware of it until it was published.
FROM HEADACHE
Stroke Recurrence Risk Doubles in Patients With AF Who Stop Anticoagulation Therapy
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
, a new Danish nationwide cohort study finds.
Among 8,119 patients aged 50 years and older (54.1% male, mean age 78.4), 4.3% had a recurrent stroke within 1 year following discharge for the initial stroke, reported David Gaist, PhD, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and colleagues in JAMA Neurology.
An adjusted analysis found that those who stopped therapy were more than twice as likely to experience another stroke over a mean 2.9 years (13.4% vs 6.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-2.89).
The findings highlight the preventive power of OAC therapy, Dr. Gaist said in an interview, and point to the importance of counseling patients about the benefits of the drugs. “Clinicians can provide balanced information on the pros and cons of discontinuing oral anticoagulants as well as lay out plans on when to restart the medication,” he said.
The researchers launched the study “to provide data on how often recurrent ischemic strokes occur in a large, unselected cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation who had a stroke and started or restarted oral anticoagulants, a situation mirroring what we see in our everyday lives as clinicians,” Dr. Gaist said. “We also wanted to see if patients with breakthrough strokes had particular characteristics compared with patients who did not have a recurrent stroke. Finally, we wanted to quantify a very simple cause of breakthrough stroke by answering the following question: How many of these patients had stopped taking their oral anticoagulant?”
A Large, Unselected Patient Cohort
Dr. Gaist and colleagues tracked 8,119 patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who started or restarted OAC therapy within 30 days following their discharge between 2014 and 2021. Patients either had atrial fibrillation before their stroke or developed it afterward.
Eighty-one percent of patients had hypertension, 19.7% had diabetes, and 27.3% had ischemic heart disease; 35.3% had never smoked and smoking information was missing for 15.9%. Race/ethnicity information was not provided.
Patients were followed for an average of 2.9 years until 2022, and all were alive at least 30 days after discharge. During that time, 663 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke (4.3%), of whom 80.4% were on OAC therapy. The percentage who had stroke at 2 years rose to 6.5%.
While the researchers thought the number of strokes was high, Dr. Gaist said, this isn’t a sign that the drugs aren’t working. “Oral anticoagulant use in secondary prevention in atrial fibrillation is guideline-supported as it has been proven to reduce the risk of stroke by roughly two thirds.”
Of study participants at baseline, 37.9% took oral anticoagulants, 23.5% took direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), and 15.1% took vitamin K antagonists. In a nested case-control analysis of 663 cases (58.7% men, mean age 80.1) matched to 2,652 controls, at admission for ischemic stroke, 80.4% were on OAC therapy, and 8%-11% of patients stopped OAC therapy after their strokes, the researchers reported.
Patients who stopped OAC therapy had more severe strokes than those who didn’t at 7 days (median recurrent ischemic stroke Scandinavian Stroke Scale [SSS] score = 40.0 vs 46.0, respectively; aOR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.31-3.36). Those who stopped OAC therapy also had higher mortality rates at 7 days (11.2% vs 3.9%, respectively) and 30 days (28.1% vs 10.9%, respectively).
It’s not clear why some patients discontinued OAC therapy. “We looked for evidence of serious bleeding or surgical procedures around the time of anticoagulant discontinuation but found this only to be the case in roughly 10% of these patients,” Dr. Gaist said.
He added that the study probably “underestimates the issue of anticoagulant discontinuation, particularly for DOACs, where a shorter half-life compared with warfarin means that even a short drug-break of a few days puts the patient at increased risk of stroke.”
The authors noted study limitations, including the lack of data on actual medication usage, alcohol usage, stroke etiology, lesion location, and socioeconomic status. And, they wrote, the study population is mostly of European origin.
No Surprises
Steven R. Messe, MD, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who didn’t take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, said in an interview that the study is a “well-done analysis.”
The findings are not surprising, he said. “The overall risk of stroke recurrence was 4.3% at 1 year while the mortality rate was higher at 15.4%. Given that the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 and the average age was 79, the stroke recurrence rate and mortality rate are in line with prior studies.”
In regard to the power of OAC therapy to prevent recurrent strokes, Dr. Messe noted that patients may not be adhering to prescribed regimens. Also, “while DOACs are clearly safer that vitamin K–dependent anticoagulants, the medications are generally not dose adjusted. It is possible that adjusting the dose based on measured anti-Xa levels to insure therapeutic anticoagulant effects may reduce the stroke risk further.”
He added that “most of these patients with prior stroke and atrial fibrillation are vasculopathic and at risk of additional strokes due to other mechanisms such as small vessel or large vessel disease.”
In the big picture, the study “confirms again that anticoagulation should be prescribed to all patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke, unless there is a strong bleeding risk contraindication,” Dr. Messe said. These patients are clearly at high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality, and all risk factors should be aggressively managed.”
Researchers are exploring other options, he said. “For example, there are studies of factor XI inhibitors that could be added to a DOAC for additional reductions in ischemic stroke. In addition, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the randomized trial LAOS III demonstrated that surgical left atrial occlusion in addition to anticoagulation may provide additional stroke prevention.”
Dr. Gaist disclosed personal fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, and grants from Bayer. Several other authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Messe has no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
AVAHO Mtg: Germline Testing Key for Vets With High-Risk PC
Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors.
Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.
For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.
As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.
While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.
According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”
But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.
The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.
In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.
Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.
“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”
A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.
The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.
Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors.
Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.
For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.
As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.
While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.
According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”
But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.
The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.
In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.
Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.
“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”
A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.
The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.
Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors.
Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.
For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.
As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.
While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.
According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”
But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.
The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.
In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.
Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.
“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”
A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.
The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.