Video

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ORLANDO – A large percentage of U.S. gastroenterologists said that they don’t routinely order genetic testing for Lynch syndrome for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, often because the physicians believe that the test is too expensive, or because they are unfamiliar with interpreting or applying the results, according to survey replies from 442 gastroenterologists.

Another factor hindering broader screening for Lynch syndrome (also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is that many of the surveyed gastroenterologists did not see themselves as having primary responsibility for ordering Lynch syndrome testing in patients who develop colorectal cancer before reaching age 50 years, Jordan J. Karlitz, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

The survey results showed that only a third of the survey respondents believed it primarily was the attending gastroenterologist’s responsibility to order testing for Lynch syndrome using either a microsatellite DNA instability test or by immunohistochemistry. A larger percentage, 38%, said that ordering one of these tests was something that a pathologist should arrange, 15% said it was primarily the responsibility of the attending medical oncologist, and the remaining respondents cited a surgeon or genetic counselor as having primary responsibility for ordering the test.

This absence of a clear consensus on who orders the test shows a “diffusion of responsibility” that often means testing is never ordered, Dr. Karlitz said in a video interview. What’s needed instead is “reflex testing” that’s done automatically for appropriate patients, an approach that has become standard at several U.S. medical centers, he noted.

The survey Dr. Karlitz and his associates ran stemmed from a report they published in 2015 that focused on management of the 274 patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer in Louisiana during 2011, defined as cancers diagnosed in patients aged 50 years or younger. Data collected in the Louisiana Tumor Registry showed that Lynch syndrome testing occurred for only 23% of these patients, the researchers reported (Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;110[7]:948-55).

To better understand the underpinnings of this low testing rate they sent a survey about Lynch syndrome testing by email in March 2017 to nearly 12,000 physicians on the membership roster of the American College of Gastroenterology. They received 455 replies, with 442 (97%) of the responses from gastroenterologists. When asked why they might not order Lynch syndrome testing for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer, 22% said the cost of testing was prohibitive, 18% blamed their lack of familiarity with the Lynch syndrome tests and how to properly interpret their results, and 15% attributed their decision to a lack of easy access to genetic counseling for their patients, with additional reasons cited by fewer respondents.

Dr. Karlitz noted that current recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for Lynch syndrome testing for all patients who develop colorectal cancer regardless of their age at diagnosis.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SAN DIEGO – Mobile stroke units are specially equipped ambulance units designed to respond and deliver treatment to stroke patients as swiftly as possible. They are outfitted with a portable CT scanner, a mobile lab, and specialized personnel, including a telemedicine unit to assist with diagnosis. If a patient is experiencing an ischemic stroke, the unit can deliver thrombolytic therapy on the spot, circumventing travel to an emergency department.

But are they cost effective? There are 13 active units in the United States, and they’re not cheap. They cost about $3.5 million to build and operate over 5 years, according to James Grotta, MD, a neurologist with the Memorial Hermann Medical Group and director of stroke research at Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center, both in Houston.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Dr. Grotta described how his group is studying the impact of mobile stroke units on time to treatment and the long-term costs and cost savings associated with them in an ongoing clinical trial that is comparing outcomes in patients eligible for tissue plasminogen activator when treated by a mobile stroke unit versus standard prehospital triage and transport by emergency medical services. The study is comparing outcomes when the mobile stroke unit and emergency medical services are the primary responders on alternating weeks. Primary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, the change in Rankin scale score from baseline to 90 days, and the diagnostic agreement between a vascular neurologist in the mobile stroke unit and a telemedicine vascular neurologist consulted from the unit.

Mobile stroke units can even supplement existing health care in case of an emergency. Dr. Grotta also recounted how one unit assisted during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

SAN DIEGO – Mobile stroke units are specially equipped ambulance units designed to respond and deliver treatment to stroke patients as swiftly as possible. They are outfitted with a portable CT scanner, a mobile lab, and specialized personnel, including a telemedicine unit to assist with diagnosis. If a patient is experiencing an ischemic stroke, the unit can deliver thrombolytic therapy on the spot, circumventing travel to an emergency department.

But are they cost effective? There are 13 active units in the United States, and they’re not cheap. They cost about $3.5 million to build and operate over 5 years, according to James Grotta, MD, a neurologist with the Memorial Hermann Medical Group and director of stroke research at Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center, both in Houston.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Dr. Grotta described how his group is studying the impact of mobile stroke units on time to treatment and the long-term costs and cost savings associated with them in an ongoing clinical trial that is comparing outcomes in patients eligible for tissue plasminogen activator when treated by a mobile stroke unit versus standard prehospital triage and transport by emergency medical services. The study is comparing outcomes when the mobile stroke unit and emergency medical services are the primary responders on alternating weeks. Primary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, the change in Rankin scale score from baseline to 90 days, and the diagnostic agreement between a vascular neurologist in the mobile stroke unit and a telemedicine vascular neurologist consulted from the unit.

Mobile stroke units can even supplement existing health care in case of an emergency. Dr. Grotta also recounted how one unit assisted during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

SAN DIEGO – Mobile stroke units are specially equipped ambulance units designed to respond and deliver treatment to stroke patients as swiftly as possible. They are outfitted with a portable CT scanner, a mobile lab, and specialized personnel, including a telemedicine unit to assist with diagnosis. If a patient is experiencing an ischemic stroke, the unit can deliver thrombolytic therapy on the spot, circumventing travel to an emergency department.

But are they cost effective? There are 13 active units in the United States, and they’re not cheap. They cost about $3.5 million to build and operate over 5 years, according to James Grotta, MD, a neurologist with the Memorial Hermann Medical Group and director of stroke research at Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center, both in Houston.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Dr. Grotta described how his group is studying the impact of mobile stroke units on time to treatment and the long-term costs and cost savings associated with them in an ongoing clinical trial that is comparing outcomes in patients eligible for tissue plasminogen activator when treated by a mobile stroke unit versus standard prehospital triage and transport by emergency medical services. The study is comparing outcomes when the mobile stroke unit and emergency medical services are the primary responders on alternating weeks. Primary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, the change in Rankin scale score from baseline to 90 days, and the diagnostic agreement between a vascular neurologist in the mobile stroke unit and a telemedicine vascular neurologist consulted from the unit.

Mobile stroke units can even supplement existing health care in case of an emergency. Dr. Grotta also recounted how one unit assisted during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

PHILADELPHIA – Despite the slow start that flibanserin had since being approved to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women in 2015, more drugs are in the pipeline to help women address low desire.

One drug – bremelanotide – has completed phase 3 trials and could be considered by the Food and Drug Administration as early as 2018, Sheryl A. Kingsberg, PhD, said during an interview at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

Bremelanotide is a first-in-class melanocortin receptor 4 agonist being developed for premenopausal women to use on an as-needed basis and is delivered using a single-dose, auto injector.

Another drug, prasterone, is also being studied to treat HSDD. The intravaginal DHEA treatment is already approved to treat dyspareunia due to vulvovaginal atrophy in menopause. The manufacturer is beginning phase 3 trials for HSDD in postmenopausal women, said Dr. Kingsberg, who is chief of the division of behavioral medicine at MacDonald Women’s Hospital/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the president of NAMS.

Additional drugs are in earlier stages of development for HSDD. While flibanserin hasn’t been a blockbuster drug, its approval by the FDA paved the way for additional drug development in this area, Dr. Kingsberg said.

Dr. Kingsberg reported consultant/advisory board work for Amag Pharmaceuticals, Duchesnay, Emotional Brain, EndoCeutics, Materna Medical, Palatin Technologies, Pfizer, Shionogi, TherapeuticsMD, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Viveve. She is on the speakers bureau for Valeant Pharmaceuticals and owns stock in Viveve.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Despite the slow start that flibanserin had since being approved to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women in 2015, more drugs are in the pipeline to help women address low desire.

One drug – bremelanotide – has completed phase 3 trials and could be considered by the Food and Drug Administration as early as 2018, Sheryl A. Kingsberg, PhD, said during an interview at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

Bremelanotide is a first-in-class melanocortin receptor 4 agonist being developed for premenopausal women to use on an as-needed basis and is delivered using a single-dose, auto injector.

Another drug, prasterone, is also being studied to treat HSDD. The intravaginal DHEA treatment is already approved to treat dyspareunia due to vulvovaginal atrophy in menopause. The manufacturer is beginning phase 3 trials for HSDD in postmenopausal women, said Dr. Kingsberg, who is chief of the division of behavioral medicine at MacDonald Women’s Hospital/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the president of NAMS.

Additional drugs are in earlier stages of development for HSDD. While flibanserin hasn’t been a blockbuster drug, its approval by the FDA paved the way for additional drug development in this area, Dr. Kingsberg said.

Dr. Kingsberg reported consultant/advisory board work for Amag Pharmaceuticals, Duchesnay, Emotional Brain, EndoCeutics, Materna Medical, Palatin Technologies, Pfizer, Shionogi, TherapeuticsMD, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Viveve. She is on the speakers bureau for Valeant Pharmaceuticals and owns stock in Viveve.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Despite the slow start that flibanserin had since being approved to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women in 2015, more drugs are in the pipeline to help women address low desire.

One drug – bremelanotide – has completed phase 3 trials and could be considered by the Food and Drug Administration as early as 2018, Sheryl A. Kingsberg, PhD, said during an interview at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society.

Bremelanotide is a first-in-class melanocortin receptor 4 agonist being developed for premenopausal women to use on an as-needed basis and is delivered using a single-dose, auto injector.

Another drug, prasterone, is also being studied to treat HSDD. The intravaginal DHEA treatment is already approved to treat dyspareunia due to vulvovaginal atrophy in menopause. The manufacturer is beginning phase 3 trials for HSDD in postmenopausal women, said Dr. Kingsberg, who is chief of the division of behavioral medicine at MacDonald Women’s Hospital/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and the president of NAMS.

Additional drugs are in earlier stages of development for HSDD. While flibanserin hasn’t been a blockbuster drug, its approval by the FDA paved the way for additional drug development in this area, Dr. Kingsberg said.

Dr. Kingsberg reported consultant/advisory board work for Amag Pharmaceuticals, Duchesnay, Emotional Brain, EndoCeutics, Materna Medical, Palatin Technologies, Pfizer, Shionogi, TherapeuticsMD, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Viveve. She is on the speakers bureau for Valeant Pharmaceuticals and owns stock in Viveve.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Andrew Kaunitz, MD, the chair of the 2017 scientific program committee for the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society, shared his top take-home messages from the meeting.

New anabolic medications that increase bone mineral density and dramatically reduce fracture risk are in the pipeline, Dr. Kaunitz, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, said in a video interview.

Another finding from the meeting is that type 2 diabetes, despite being associated with an increased body mass index, actually elevates a woman’s risk for fracture. “That was something new for me, and I think it was something new for a lot of the practitioners attending the NAMS meeting,” Dr. Kaunitz said.

The meeting also offered tips for managing polycystic ovarian syndrome in women who are in midlife, including the importance of screening for diabetes and assessing for lipid disorders. Additionally, attendees learned about the management of migraines in menopausal women and older reproductive-age women.

A well-attended session on breast imaging explored how breast tomosynthesis can reduce false positives and recalls, as well as how new technology can reduce the radiation exposure associated with tomosynthesis. The session also featured evidence that screening mammography has lower-than-reported sensitivity, but offered a hopeful note on the promise of improved sensitivity through molecular breast imaging.

Dr. Kaunitz reported consultant/advisory board work for Allergan, Amag Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Mithra Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Shionogi. He has received grant/research support from Bayer, Radius Health, TherapeuticsMD, and Millendo Therapeutics.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Andrew Kaunitz, MD, the chair of the 2017 scientific program committee for the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society, shared his top take-home messages from the meeting.

New anabolic medications that increase bone mineral density and dramatically reduce fracture risk are in the pipeline, Dr. Kaunitz, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, said in a video interview.

Another finding from the meeting is that type 2 diabetes, despite being associated with an increased body mass index, actually elevates a woman’s risk for fracture. “That was something new for me, and I think it was something new for a lot of the practitioners attending the NAMS meeting,” Dr. Kaunitz said.

The meeting also offered tips for managing polycystic ovarian syndrome in women who are in midlife, including the importance of screening for diabetes and assessing for lipid disorders. Additionally, attendees learned about the management of migraines in menopausal women and older reproductive-age women.

A well-attended session on breast imaging explored how breast tomosynthesis can reduce false positives and recalls, as well as how new technology can reduce the radiation exposure associated with tomosynthesis. The session also featured evidence that screening mammography has lower-than-reported sensitivity, but offered a hopeful note on the promise of improved sensitivity through molecular breast imaging.

Dr. Kaunitz reported consultant/advisory board work for Allergan, Amag Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Mithra Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Shionogi. He has received grant/research support from Bayer, Radius Health, TherapeuticsMD, and Millendo Therapeutics.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Andrew Kaunitz, MD, the chair of the 2017 scientific program committee for the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society, shared his top take-home messages from the meeting.

New anabolic medications that increase bone mineral density and dramatically reduce fracture risk are in the pipeline, Dr. Kaunitz, a professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, said in a video interview.

Another finding from the meeting is that type 2 diabetes, despite being associated with an increased body mass index, actually elevates a woman’s risk for fracture. “That was something new for me, and I think it was something new for a lot of the practitioners attending the NAMS meeting,” Dr. Kaunitz said.

The meeting also offered tips for managing polycystic ovarian syndrome in women who are in midlife, including the importance of screening for diabetes and assessing for lipid disorders. Additionally, attendees learned about the management of migraines in menopausal women and older reproductive-age women.

A well-attended session on breast imaging explored how breast tomosynthesis can reduce false positives and recalls, as well as how new technology can reduce the radiation exposure associated with tomosynthesis. The session also featured evidence that screening mammography has lower-than-reported sensitivity, but offered a hopeful note on the promise of improved sensitivity through molecular breast imaging.

Dr. Kaunitz reported consultant/advisory board work for Allergan, Amag Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Mithra Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Shionogi. He has received grant/research support from Bayer, Radius Health, TherapeuticsMD, and Millendo Therapeutics.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) replaced vulvovaginal atrophy in 2014 as a way to describe the changes to the genital and urinary tracts after menopause, but preliminary research shows it may be missing some symptoms.

In 2015, Amanda Clark, MD, a urogynecologist at the Kaiser Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and her colleagues surveyed women aged 55 years and older about their vulvar, vaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms within 2 weeks of a well-woman visit to their primary care physician or gynecologist in the Kaiser system. In total, 1,533 provided valid data.

The researchers then used factor analysis to see if the symptoms matched up with GSM. If GSM is a true syndrome and only a single syndrome, then all of the factors would fit together in a one-factor model, Dr. Clark explained at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Instead, the researchers found that a three-factor model – with vulvovaginal symptoms of irritation and pain in one group, urinary symptoms in another group, and vaginal discharge and odor in a third group – fit best with the symptoms reported in their survey.

“This work is very preliminary and needs to be replicated in many other samples and looked at carefully,” Dr. Clark said in an interview. “But what we think is that genitourinary syndrome of menopause is a starting point.”

The study was funded by a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Clark reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) replaced vulvovaginal atrophy in 2014 as a way to describe the changes to the genital and urinary tracts after menopause, but preliminary research shows it may be missing some symptoms.

In 2015, Amanda Clark, MD, a urogynecologist at the Kaiser Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and her colleagues surveyed women aged 55 years and older about their vulvar, vaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms within 2 weeks of a well-woman visit to their primary care physician or gynecologist in the Kaiser system. In total, 1,533 provided valid data.

The researchers then used factor analysis to see if the symptoms matched up with GSM. If GSM is a true syndrome and only a single syndrome, then all of the factors would fit together in a one-factor model, Dr. Clark explained at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Instead, the researchers found that a three-factor model – with vulvovaginal symptoms of irritation and pain in one group, urinary symptoms in another group, and vaginal discharge and odor in a third group – fit best with the symptoms reported in their survey.

“This work is very preliminary and needs to be replicated in many other samples and looked at carefully,” Dr. Clark said in an interview. “But what we think is that genitourinary syndrome of menopause is a starting point.”

The study was funded by a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Clark reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

PHILADELPHIA – Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) replaced vulvovaginal atrophy in 2014 as a way to describe the changes to the genital and urinary tracts after menopause, but preliminary research shows it may be missing some symptoms.

In 2015, Amanda Clark, MD, a urogynecologist at the Kaiser Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and her colleagues surveyed women aged 55 years and older about their vulvar, vaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms within 2 weeks of a well-woman visit to their primary care physician or gynecologist in the Kaiser system. In total, 1,533 provided valid data.

The researchers then used factor analysis to see if the symptoms matched up with GSM. If GSM is a true syndrome and only a single syndrome, then all of the factors would fit together in a one-factor model, Dr. Clark explained at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society. Instead, the researchers found that a three-factor model – with vulvovaginal symptoms of irritation and pain in one group, urinary symptoms in another group, and vaginal discharge and odor in a third group – fit best with the symptoms reported in their survey.

“This work is very preliminary and needs to be replicated in many other samples and looked at carefully,” Dr. Clark said in an interview. “But what we think is that genitourinary syndrome of menopause is a starting point.”

The study was funded by a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Clark reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @maryellenny

ORLANDO – Mechanical enhancements to existing colonoscopes may be better than optical enhancements for improving adenoma detection, according to findings from a meta-analysis of data from 240 studies.

“Even though colonoscopy is felt to be our best test compared to others … we also recognize that we do not see every square inch of the colon,” Seth Gross, MD, of New York University Langone Medical Center said in a video interview at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

There has been a “tremendous drive” to improve the ability to inspect blind spots in the colon, and also to better recognize subtle precancerous lesions in visible areas of the colon, but it has been unclear whether optical or mechanical enhancements will better achieve that goal, Dr. Gross said.

Based on the findings of his meta-analysis, it appears that mechanical enhancements, including integrated balloons and single-use caps with finger-like projections or discs that clip on to the colonoscope to engage the colon wall and flatten areas to allow access to areas behind folds, are most effective.

The preliminary data should lead to more clinical questions about what can be done to improve exams, he said.

In fact, one four-arm study looking at standard colonoscopy vs. colonoscopy with various mechanical enhancements was just completed, and others looking at “deep learning” and computer assistance are underway.

The latter technology is intriguing, as “not every polyp that we’re missing is behind a fold,” Dr. Gross noted.

Preliminary findings from a study out of China demonstrated the feasibility of such computer assistance, and the researchers are now working on a prospective study of real-time cases to see if that type of integrated learning with computer assistance can improve polyp detection.

“Sometimes it’s just these subtle mucosal changes that we have to train our eye to identify,” he said. “So imagine having another set of eyes … where there’s a computer sort of highlighting an area that we should focus on.”

Dr. Gross reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Mechanical enhancements to existing colonoscopes may be better than optical enhancements for improving adenoma detection, according to findings from a meta-analysis of data from 240 studies.

“Even though colonoscopy is felt to be our best test compared to others … we also recognize that we do not see every square inch of the colon,” Seth Gross, MD, of New York University Langone Medical Center said in a video interview at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

There has been a “tremendous drive” to improve the ability to inspect blind spots in the colon, and also to better recognize subtle precancerous lesions in visible areas of the colon, but it has been unclear whether optical or mechanical enhancements will better achieve that goal, Dr. Gross said.

Based on the findings of his meta-analysis, it appears that mechanical enhancements, including integrated balloons and single-use caps with finger-like projections or discs that clip on to the colonoscope to engage the colon wall and flatten areas to allow access to areas behind folds, are most effective.

The preliminary data should lead to more clinical questions about what can be done to improve exams, he said.

In fact, one four-arm study looking at standard colonoscopy vs. colonoscopy with various mechanical enhancements was just completed, and others looking at “deep learning” and computer assistance are underway.

The latter technology is intriguing, as “not every polyp that we’re missing is behind a fold,” Dr. Gross noted.

Preliminary findings from a study out of China demonstrated the feasibility of such computer assistance, and the researchers are now working on a prospective study of real-time cases to see if that type of integrated learning with computer assistance can improve polyp detection.

“Sometimes it’s just these subtle mucosal changes that we have to train our eye to identify,” he said. “So imagine having another set of eyes … where there’s a computer sort of highlighting an area that we should focus on.”

Dr. Gross reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

ORLANDO – Mechanical enhancements to existing colonoscopes may be better than optical enhancements for improving adenoma detection, according to findings from a meta-analysis of data from 240 studies.

“Even though colonoscopy is felt to be our best test compared to others … we also recognize that we do not see every square inch of the colon,” Seth Gross, MD, of New York University Langone Medical Center said in a video interview at the World Congress of Gastroenterology at ACG 2017.

There has been a “tremendous drive” to improve the ability to inspect blind spots in the colon, and also to better recognize subtle precancerous lesions in visible areas of the colon, but it has been unclear whether optical or mechanical enhancements will better achieve that goal, Dr. Gross said.

Based on the findings of his meta-analysis, it appears that mechanical enhancements, including integrated balloons and single-use caps with finger-like projections or discs that clip on to the colonoscope to engage the colon wall and flatten areas to allow access to areas behind folds, are most effective.

The preliminary data should lead to more clinical questions about what can be done to improve exams, he said.

In fact, one four-arm study looking at standard colonoscopy vs. colonoscopy with various mechanical enhancements was just completed, and others looking at “deep learning” and computer assistance are underway.

The latter technology is intriguing, as “not every polyp that we’re missing is behind a fold,” Dr. Gross noted.

Preliminary findings from a study out of China demonstrated the feasibility of such computer assistance, and the researchers are now working on a prospective study of real-time cases to see if that type of integrated learning with computer assistance can improve polyp detection.

“Sometimes it’s just these subtle mucosal changes that we have to train our eye to identify,” he said. “So imagine having another set of eyes … where there’s a computer sort of highlighting an area that we should focus on.”

Dr. Gross reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN DIEGO – Earlier this month, an article in Lancet Psychiatry reported the results of a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled trial that tested deep brain stimulation of the Brodmann area 25 within the subcallosal cingulate white matter in 90 patients with treatment-resistant depression. Unfortunately, the study showed no significant benefit at 6 months.

The approach had shown promise in some previous open-label studies, which prompted the multicenter trial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30371-1).

Although the 6-month results were disappointing, the open-label phase of the study told a different story. At 2 years, 48% of patients in the stimulation group achieved an antidepressant response, higher than what would be expected from treatment as usual in this difficult population.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Helen Mayberg, MD, one of the study authors and professor of psychiatry, neurology, and radiology at Emory University, Atlanta, discusses these long-term results and their implications, as well as lessons learned and how they might inform future research.

SAN DIEGO – Earlier this month, an article in Lancet Psychiatry reported the results of a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled trial that tested deep brain stimulation of the Brodmann area 25 within the subcallosal cingulate white matter in 90 patients with treatment-resistant depression. Unfortunately, the study showed no significant benefit at 6 months.

The approach had shown promise in some previous open-label studies, which prompted the multicenter trial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30371-1).

Although the 6-month results were disappointing, the open-label phase of the study told a different story. At 2 years, 48% of patients in the stimulation group achieved an antidepressant response, higher than what would be expected from treatment as usual in this difficult population.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Helen Mayberg, MD, one of the study authors and professor of psychiatry, neurology, and radiology at Emory University, Atlanta, discusses these long-term results and their implications, as well as lessons learned and how they might inform future research.

SAN DIEGO – Earlier this month, an article in Lancet Psychiatry reported the results of a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled trial that tested deep brain stimulation of the Brodmann area 25 within the subcallosal cingulate white matter in 90 patients with treatment-resistant depression. Unfortunately, the study showed no significant benefit at 6 months.

The approach had shown promise in some previous open-label studies, which prompted the multicenter trial (Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30371-1).

Although the 6-month results were disappointing, the open-label phase of the study told a different story. At 2 years, 48% of patients in the stimulation group achieved an antidepressant response, higher than what would be expected from treatment as usual in this difficult population.

In this video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, Helen Mayberg, MD, one of the study authors and professor of psychiatry, neurology, and radiology at Emory University, Atlanta, discusses these long-term results and their implications, as well as lessons learned and how they might inform future research.

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:
 

Measure #47: Care Plan

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented advance care plan in their medical records.

What you need to do: Discuss with the patient the creation of an advance care plan or the naming of a surrogate decision maker and then document that in the medical record. If the patient does not wish to make a plan or is unable to name a decision maker, document that along with the fact that the issue of advance care planning was discussed.

Eligible cases include patients aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205,99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99218, 99219, 99220, 99221, 99222, 99223, 99231, 99232, 99233, 99234, 99235, 99236, 99291, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a Quality Data Code that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 1123F indicates that advance care planning was discussed and documented, and an advance care plan or surrogate decision maker was documented in the medical record. On the other hand, CPT II 1124F should be used if advance care planning was discussed and documented in the medical record, but the patient did not wish or was not able to name a surrogate decision maker or provide an advance care plan.

CMS has a full list of measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B–allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:
 

Measure #47: Care Plan

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented advance care plan in their medical records.

What you need to do: Discuss with the patient the creation of an advance care plan or the naming of a surrogate decision maker and then document that in the medical record. If the patient does not wish to make a plan or is unable to name a decision maker, document that along with the fact that the issue of advance care planning was discussed.

Eligible cases include patients aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205,99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99218, 99219, 99220, 99221, 99222, 99223, 99231, 99232, 99233, 99234, 99235, 99236, 99291, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a Quality Data Code that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 1123F indicates that advance care planning was discussed and documented, and an advance care plan or surrogate decision maker was documented in the medical record. On the other hand, CPT II 1124F should be used if advance care planning was discussed and documented in the medical record, but the patient did not wish or was not able to name a surrogate decision maker or provide an advance care plan.

CMS has a full list of measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B–allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:
 

Measure #47: Care Plan

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of patients aged 65 years and older who have a documented advance care plan in their medical records.

What you need to do: Discuss with the patient the creation of an advance care plan or the naming of a surrogate decision maker and then document that in the medical record. If the patient does not wish to make a plan or is unable to name a decision maker, document that along with the fact that the issue of advance care planning was discussed.

Eligible cases include patients aged 65 years or older on the date of the encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205,99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99218, 99219, 99220, 99221, 99222, 99223, 99231, 99232, 99233, 99234, 99235, 99236, 99291, 99304, 99305, 99306, 99307, 99308, 99309, 99310, 99324, 99325, 99326, 99327, 99328, 99334, 99335, 99336, 99337, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a Quality Data Code that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 1123F indicates that advance care planning was discussed and documented, and an advance care plan or surrogate decision maker was documented in the medical record. On the other hand, CPT II 1124F should be used if advance care planning was discussed and documented in the medical record, but the patient did not wish or was not able to name a surrogate decision maker or provide an advance care plan.

CMS has a full list of measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B–allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

BARCELONA – In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who also have atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation of the arrhythmia produced significantly improved long-term survival and a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, in results from a multicenter randomized trial with more than 350 patients.

During 5-year follow-up, heart failure patients who underwent an ablative procedure for their atrial fibrillation (AF) had a statistically significant 37% lower rate of the combined primary endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, compared with control patients managed by standard medical therapy, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The results also showed significant reductions from ablation, compared with controls, for the individual secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations, said Dr. Marrouche, a professor of medicine and electrophysiologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

CASTLE AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to and received research funding from Biotronik and from several other companies. Dr. Brachmann has been a speaker for and has received research funding from Biotronik and from Abbott and Medtronic.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BARCELONA – In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who also have atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation of the arrhythmia produced significantly improved long-term survival and a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, in results from a multicenter randomized trial with more than 350 patients.

During 5-year follow-up, heart failure patients who underwent an ablative procedure for their atrial fibrillation (AF) had a statistically significant 37% lower rate of the combined primary endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, compared with control patients managed by standard medical therapy, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The results also showed significant reductions from ablation, compared with controls, for the individual secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations, said Dr. Marrouche, a professor of medicine and electrophysiologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

CASTLE AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to and received research funding from Biotronik and from several other companies. Dr. Brachmann has been a speaker for and has received research funding from Biotronik and from Abbott and Medtronic.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

BARCELONA – In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who also have atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation of the arrhythmia produced significantly improved long-term survival and a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, in results from a multicenter randomized trial with more than 350 patients.

During 5-year follow-up, heart failure patients who underwent an ablative procedure for their atrial fibrillation (AF) had a statistically significant 37% lower rate of the combined primary endpoint of all-cause death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, compared with control patients managed by standard medical therapy, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The results also showed significant reductions from ablation, compared with controls, for the individual secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations, said Dr. Marrouche, a professor of medicine and electrophysiologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

CASTLE AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to and received research funding from Biotronik and from several other companies. Dr. Brachmann has been a speaker for and has received research funding from Biotronik and from Abbott and Medtronic.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #112: Breast Cancer Screening

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of women 50-74 years old who had a mammogram to screen for breast cancer.

What you need to do: The patient should either be screened for breast cancer on the date of service or there should be documentation that the patient was screened for breast cancer at least once within 27 months prior to the date of service.

Eligible cases include patients 51-74 years of age on the date of encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes (CPT or HCPCS) include 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 3014F indicates that screening mammography results were documented and reviewed. Code G9708 is an exclusion code for women who had a bilateral mastectomy or evidence of a right or left unilateral mastectomy.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.

• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.

• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.

• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #112: Breast Cancer Screening

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of women 50-74 years old who had a mammogram to screen for breast cancer.

What you need to do: The patient should either be screened for breast cancer on the date of service or there should be documentation that the patient was screened for breast cancer at least once within 27 months prior to the date of service.

Eligible cases include patients 51-74 years of age on the date of encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes (CPT or HCPCS) include 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 3014F indicates that screening mammography results were documented and reviewed. Code G9708 is an exclusion code for women who had a bilateral mastectomy or evidence of a right or left unilateral mastectomy.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.

• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.

• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.

• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #112: Breast Cancer Screening

This measure is aimed at capturing the percentage of women 50-74 years old who had a mammogram to screen for breast cancer.

What you need to do: The patient should either be screened for breast cancer on the date of service or there should be documentation that the patient was screened for breast cancer at least once within 27 months prior to the date of service.

Eligible cases include patients 51-74 years of age on the date of encounter and a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes (CPT or HCPCS) include 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99341, 99342, 99343, 99344, 99345, 99347, 99348, 99349, 99350, G0402, G0438, G0439.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, CPT II 3014F indicates that screening mammography results were documented and reviewed. Code G9708 is an exclusion code for women who had a bilateral mastectomy or evidence of a right or left unilateral mastectomy.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.

• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.

• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.

• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).