Business of Medicine

As US medical school graduates learned Friday, March 15, where they would spend their residencies, new Match Day 2024 data showed a loss of interest in pediatrics, whereas emergency medicine regained popularity after concern over last year’s unfilled positions.

Hospitals and medical groups offered 41,503 residency positions in 2024, a 3% increase from last year, according to the data released by the National Resident Matching Program. 

Emergency medicine reversed its recent decline, with only 135 unfilled positions, a 13.9% improvement over last year.

But though the number of pediatric residency slots increased slightly from last year, 8% of available positions remained unfilled in 2024 compared with about 3% last year. 

Physician leaders and policymakers alike pay keen attention to Match Day results because they can signal future shortages in certain specialties, including primary care. Unfilled slots also can raise concerns over too many residency programs in a specialty. 

Medical students’ interest in pediatrics continues to decline in part because it pays less than other specialties, Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist known for his medical school commentaries, told this news organization. The number of pediatric applicants from US medical schools peaked in 2015 and has fallen since, he said.

“There’s been a lot of soul searching ... this week, with people speculating about lots of (reasons),” Dr. Carmody said. “I don’t think it’s even debt. You can look at the number of unfilled positions, and it correlates with the expected earning potential of those specialties.” 

Family medicine, for example, filled about 88% of its positions this year.

Ob.gyn. residencies retained their popularity despite concerns over abortion and reproductive health rights in many states. The specialty filled 99.6% of its positions, a very slight improvement over last year’s 99% rate. 

Though ob.gyn. applicants might prefer programs in states where there are more liberal policies around reproductive health, many won’t be in a position where they can choose that because of the limited number of ob.gyn. slots, Dr. Carmody said.

Unfilled residency slots likely will be filled through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). Applicants who did not match in the first round participate in SOAP for one of the 2562 positions in 787 programs that went unfilled after the matching algorithm was processed. A total of 2575 positions were placed in SOAP, including positions in programs that did not participate in the algorithm phase of the process. There were 83 fewer positions in SOAP in 2024, a decrease of 3.1% compared with last year’s Match. More detailed data on SOAP results will be released later this year.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As US medical school graduates learned Friday, March 15, where they would spend their residencies, new Match Day 2024 data showed a loss of interest in pediatrics, whereas emergency medicine regained popularity after concern over last year’s unfilled positions.

Hospitals and medical groups offered 41,503 residency positions in 2024, a 3% increase from last year, according to the data released by the National Resident Matching Program. 

Emergency medicine reversed its recent decline, with only 135 unfilled positions, a 13.9% improvement over last year.

But though the number of pediatric residency slots increased slightly from last year, 8% of available positions remained unfilled in 2024 compared with about 3% last year. 

Physician leaders and policymakers alike pay keen attention to Match Day results because they can signal future shortages in certain specialties, including primary care. Unfilled slots also can raise concerns over too many residency programs in a specialty. 

Medical students’ interest in pediatrics continues to decline in part because it pays less than other specialties, Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist known for his medical school commentaries, told this news organization. The number of pediatric applicants from US medical schools peaked in 2015 and has fallen since, he said.

“There’s been a lot of soul searching ... this week, with people speculating about lots of (reasons),” Dr. Carmody said. “I don’t think it’s even debt. You can look at the number of unfilled positions, and it correlates with the expected earning potential of those specialties.” 

Family medicine, for example, filled about 88% of its positions this year.

Ob.gyn. residencies retained their popularity despite concerns over abortion and reproductive health rights in many states. The specialty filled 99.6% of its positions, a very slight improvement over last year’s 99% rate. 

Though ob.gyn. applicants might prefer programs in states where there are more liberal policies around reproductive health, many won’t be in a position where they can choose that because of the limited number of ob.gyn. slots, Dr. Carmody said.

Unfilled residency slots likely will be filled through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). Applicants who did not match in the first round participate in SOAP for one of the 2562 positions in 787 programs that went unfilled after the matching algorithm was processed. A total of 2575 positions were placed in SOAP, including positions in programs that did not participate in the algorithm phase of the process. There were 83 fewer positions in SOAP in 2024, a decrease of 3.1% compared with last year’s Match. More detailed data on SOAP results will be released later this year.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As US medical school graduates learned Friday, March 15, where they would spend their residencies, new Match Day 2024 data showed a loss of interest in pediatrics, whereas emergency medicine regained popularity after concern over last year’s unfilled positions.

Hospitals and medical groups offered 41,503 residency positions in 2024, a 3% increase from last year, according to the data released by the National Resident Matching Program. 

Emergency medicine reversed its recent decline, with only 135 unfilled positions, a 13.9% improvement over last year.

But though the number of pediatric residency slots increased slightly from last year, 8% of available positions remained unfilled in 2024 compared with about 3% last year. 

Physician leaders and policymakers alike pay keen attention to Match Day results because they can signal future shortages in certain specialties, including primary care. Unfilled slots also can raise concerns over too many residency programs in a specialty. 

Medical students’ interest in pediatrics continues to decline in part because it pays less than other specialties, Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, a pediatric nephrologist known for his medical school commentaries, told this news organization. The number of pediatric applicants from US medical schools peaked in 2015 and has fallen since, he said.

“There’s been a lot of soul searching ... this week, with people speculating about lots of (reasons),” Dr. Carmody said. “I don’t think it’s even debt. You can look at the number of unfilled positions, and it correlates with the expected earning potential of those specialties.” 

Family medicine, for example, filled about 88% of its positions this year.

Ob.gyn. residencies retained their popularity despite concerns over abortion and reproductive health rights in many states. The specialty filled 99.6% of its positions, a very slight improvement over last year’s 99% rate. 

Though ob.gyn. applicants might prefer programs in states where there are more liberal policies around reproductive health, many won’t be in a position where they can choose that because of the limited number of ob.gyn. slots, Dr. Carmody said.

Unfilled residency slots likely will be filled through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). Applicants who did not match in the first round participate in SOAP for one of the 2562 positions in 787 programs that went unfilled after the matching algorithm was processed. A total of 2575 positions were placed in SOAP, including positions in programs that did not participate in the algorithm phase of the process. There were 83 fewer positions in SOAP in 2024, a decrease of 3.1% compared with last year’s Match. More detailed data on SOAP results will be released later this year.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I had a premed college student with me, a young lady trying to figure out if medicine was for her, and what exactly a neurologist does.

The patient, a gentlemen in his mid-70s, had just left. He had some unusual symptoms. Not implausible, but the kind of case where the answers don’t come together easily. I’d ordered tests for the usual suspects and walked him up front.

When I got back she asked me “what do you think is wrong with him?”

Without thinking I said “I have no idea.” By this time I’d turned to some scheduling messages from my secretary, and didn’t register the student’s surprise for a moment.

I mean, I’m an attending physician. To her I’m the epitome of the career. I got accepted to (and survived) medical school. I made it through residency and fellowship and have almost 26 years of trench-earned experience behind me (hard to believe for me, too, sometimes). And yet I’d just said I didn’t know what was going on.

Reversing the roles and thinking back to the late 1980s, I probably would have felt the same way she did.

Of course “I have no idea” is a bit of unintentional hyperbole. I have some idea, just not a clear answer yet. I’d turned over the possible locations and causes, and so ordered tests to help narrow it down. As one of my attendings in residency used to say, “some days you need a rifle, some days a shotgun” to figure it out.

Being a doctor, even a good one (I hope I am, but not making any guarantees) doesn’t mean you know everything, or have the ability to figure it out immediately. Otherwise we wouldn’t need imaging, labs, and a host of other tests. Sherlock Holmes was a lot of things, but Watson was the doctor.

To those at the beginning of their careers, just like it was to us then, this is a revelation. Aren’t we supposed to know everything? We probably once believed we would, too, someday.

What we learn through training and years of experience isn’t so much the answers to everything as much as the road map on how to get there. What combination of tests and decisions will hopefully lead us to the correct point.

Most of us realize that intuitively at this point, but it can be hard to explain to others. We have patients ask “what do you think is going on?” and we often have no answer other than “not sure yet, but I’ll try to find out.”

We don’t realize how far we’ve come until we see ourselves in someone who’s starting the same journey. And that’s something you can’t teach.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

A recently filed lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson can serve as an example to use when advocating for patients who have insurance through their employers that can potentially hurt them physically and financially. When your patient has an employer-funded health insurance plan where the employer directly pays for all medical costs — called an ERISA plan for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — there are certain accountability, fairness, and fiduciary responsibilities that the employers must meet. These so-called ERISA plans do not have to follow state utilization management legislation that addresses harmful changes in insurers’ formularies and other policies, so when the plans are not properly overseen and do not mandate the delivery of proper care at the lowest cost, both the patient and employer may be losing out.

The J&J lawsuit serves as a bellwether warning to self-insured employers to demand transparency from their third-party administrators so as not to (knowingly or unknowingly) breach their fiduciary duty to their health plans and employees. These duties include ensuring reasonable plan costs as well as acting in the best interest of their employees. There were multiple complaints in the lawsuit by a J&J employee, stating that she paid a much higher price for her multiple sclerosis drug through the plan than the price she eventually found at a lower cost pharmacy. The allegations state that J&J failed to show prudence in its selection of a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). In addition, the company failed to negotiate better drug pricing terms, and the design of the drug plan steered patients to the PBM specialty pharmacy, resulting in higher prices for the employees. All of these led to higher drug costs and premiums for employees, which, according to the lawsuit, is a breach of J&J’s fiduciary duties.

Why Should Rheumatologists Care About This?

With all insurance plans, it feels as though we are dealing with obstacles every day that keep us from giving the excellent rheumatologic care that our patients deserve. Self-insured employers now account for over 50% of commercial health plans, and as rheumatologists caring for the employees of these companies, we can use those transparency, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of the employer to ensure that our patients are getting the proper care at the lowest cost.

Not only is the J&J lawsuit a warning to self-insured employers, but a reminder to rheumatologists to be on the lookout for drug pricing issues and formulary construction that leads to higher pricing for employees and the plan. For example, make note if your patient is forced to fail a much higher priced self-injectable biologic before using a much lower cost infusible medication. Or if the plan mandates the use of the much higher priced adalimumab biosimilars over the lower priced biosimilars or even the highest priced JAK inhibitor over the lowest priced one. Let’s not forget mandated white bagging, which is often much more expensive to the plan than the buy-and-bill model through a rheumatologist’s office.

Recently, we have been able to help rheumatology practices get exemptions from white-bagging mandates that large self-insured employers often have in their plan documents. We have been able to show that the cost of obtaining the medication through specialty pharmacy (SP) is much higher than through the buy-and-bill model. Mandating that the plan spend more money on SP drugs, as opposed to allowing the rheumatologist to buy and bill, could easily be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the employer by mandating a higher cost model.
 

CSRO Payer Issue Response Team

I have written about the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO)’s Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT) in the past. Rheumatologists around the country can send to PIRT any problems that they are having with payers. A recent PIRT submission involved a white-bagging mandate for an employee of a very large international Fortune 500 company. This particular example is important because of the response by the VP of Global Benefits for this company. Express Scripts is the administrator of pharmacy benefits for this company. The rheumatologist was told that he could not buy and bill for an infusible medicine but would have to obtain the drug through Express Scripts’ SP. He then asked Express Scripts for the SP medication’s cost to the health plan in order to compare the SP price versus what the buy-and-bill model would cost this company. Express Scripts would not respond to this simple transparency question; often, PBMs claim that this is proprietary information.

I was able to speak with the company’s VP of Global Benefits regarding this issue. First of all, he stated that his company was not mandating white bagging. I explained to him that the plan documents had white bagging as the only option for acquisition of provider-administered drugs. A rheumatologist would have to apply for an exemption to buy and bill, and in this case, it was denied. This is essentially a mandate.

I gave the VP of Global Benefits an example of another large Fortune 500 company (UPS) that spent over $30,000 per year more on an infusible medication when obtained through SP than what it cost them under a buy-and-bill model. I had hoped that this example would impress upon the VP the importance of transparency in pricing and claims to prevent his company from unknowingly costing the health plan more and its being construed as a breach of fiduciary duty. It was explained to me by the VP of Global Benefits that his company is part of the National Drug Purchasers Coalition and they trust Express Scripts to do the right thing for them. As they say, “You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.”
 

Liability of a Plan That Physically Harms an Employee?

A slightly different example of a self-insured employer, presumably unknowingly, allowing its third-party administrator to mishandle the care of an employee was recently brought to me by a rheumatologist in North Carolina. She takes care of an employee who has rheumatoid arthritis with severe interstitial lung disease (ILD). The employee’s pulmonary status was stabilized on several courses of Rituxan (reference product of rituximab). Recently, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the third-party administrator of this employer’s plan, mandated a switch to a biosimilar of rituximab for the treatment of the ILD. The rheumatologist appealed the nonmedical switch but gave the patient the biosimilar so as not to delay care. Her patient’s condition is now deteriorating with progression of the ILD, and she once again has asked for an exemption to use Rituxan, which had initially stabilized the patient. Her staff told her that the BCBSNC rep said that the patient would have to have a life-threatening infusion reaction (and present the bill for the ambulance) before they would approve a return to the reference product. An employer that knowingly or unknowingly allows a third-party administrator to act in such a way as to endanger the life of an employee could be considered to be breaching its fiduciary duty. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney — merely a rheumatologist with common sense. Nor am I making any qualitative statement about biosimilars.)

We now have a lawsuit to which you can refer when advocating for our patients who are employed by large, self-insured employers. It is unfortunate that it is not the third-party administrators or PBMs that can be sued, as they are generally not the fiduciaries for the plan. It is the unsuspecting employers who “trust” their brokers/consultants and the third-party administrators to do the right thing. Please continue to send us your payer issues. And if your patient works for a self-insured employer, I will continue to remind the CEO, CFO, and chief compliance officer that an employer with an ERISA health plan can potentially face legal action if the health plan’s actions or decisions cause harm to an employee’s health — physically or in the wallet.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

When considering a job offer at an academic radiation oncology practice, the prospective employee should focus on three key factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — and accept an offer if the practice is “great” in at least two of those areas and “good” in the third, experts say in a recent editorial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many physicians choose to go into academic medicine because they want to stay involved in research and education while still treating patients.
• However, graduating radiation oncology residents often lack or have limited guidance on what to look for in a prospective job and how to assess their contract.
• This recent editorial provides guidance to radiation oncologists seeking academic positions. The authors advise prospective employees to evaluate three main factors — compensation, daily duties, and location — as well as provide tips for identifying red flags in each category.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compensation: Prospective faculty should assess both direct compensation, that is, salary, and indirect compensation, which typically includes retirement contributions and other perks. For direct compensation, what is the base salary? Is extra work compensated? How does the salary offer measure up to salary data reported by national agencies? Also: Don’t overlook uncompensated duties, such as time in tumor boards or in meetings, which may be time-consuming, and make sure compensation terms are clearly delineated in a contract and equitable among physicians in a specific rank.
• Daily duties: When it comes to daily life on the job, a prospective employee should consider many factors, including the cancer center’s excitement to hire you, the reputation of the faculty and leaders at the organization, employee turnover rates, diversity among faculty, and the time line of career advancement.
• Location: The location of the job encompasses the geography — such as distance from home to work, the number of practices covered, cost of living, and the area itself — as well as the atmosphere for conducting research and publishing.
• Finally, carefully review the job contract. All the key aspects of the job, including compensation and benefits, should be clearly stated in the contract to “improve communication of expectations.”

IN PRACTICE:

“A prospective faculty member can ask 100 questions, but they can’t make 100 demands; consideration of the three domains can help to focus negotiation efforts where the efforts are needed,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This editorial, led by Nicholas G. Zaorsky from the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, was published online in Practical Radiation Oncology

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author declared being supported by the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health. He also reported having ties with many other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The rheumatologist of the future will see patients who have been assessed and triaged with artificial intelligence utilizing data from remote kiosk-placed ultrasound scanners and physician-directed algorithms. Practices will be broadly fueled by AI, which will screen charts, produce notes, handle prior authorizations and insurance issues, aid in earlier diagnoses, find patients for clinical trials, and maybe even suggest the next best therapy for individual patients.

Such is the future envisioned by Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, and John J. Cush, MD, who discussed the current and forthcoming reach of AI — and their own uses of it — at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not at the stage where ChatGPT and AI can tell us what the next best therapy is, but we’re getting there,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas and executive director of RheumNow.com. For now, he said, “AI affords us a truly big-time increase in efficiency. It helps you deal with your time constraints in managing information overload and task overload.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At a time when “PubMed doubles every 73 days ... and it’s getting harder and harder to stay abreast,” for example, new applications such as Scite, SciSpace, and Consensus can help curate, focus, and analyze the literature to match one’s own clinical interests. Such review tools are “just now getting into play and are evolving,” Dr. Cush said, noting that many but not all of them are based on ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot that had a over 100 million users by January 2023 — just over a month after its version 3.5 was released.

For Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist and Midwest Region director in the department of rheumatology for the Advocate Health Medical Group in Franklin, Wisconsin, clinician-developed algorithms are helping his group assess patients — often remotely — and triage them to be seen fairly immediately by a rheumatologist versus in 4-6 weeks or in several months. “You can use AI to guide your access,” he said.

A patient “with a family history of RA, sed rate above 50, and osteopenia on x-rays” would be seen within a week, for example, while “another patient who’s had a [positive] ANA with no other symptoms, and maybe a family history, might be seen in 4-6 weeks,” said Dr. Wells, sharing his belief that “there is not a shortage of rheumatologists, [but a] shortage of using rheumatologists efficiently.”

Dr. Wells

AI for Improving Workflow

Current and future advances will enrich the intersection of AI and virtual medicine and improve outcomes and the rheumatologist-patient interaction, Dr. Wells said, pointing to research presented at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting on the use of computer vision technology for remotely assessing disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the proof-of-concept “MeFisto” study, 28 patients with RA used an app that enabled computer vision inference of hand motion data. Upon recording, an algorithm tracked the mean degree change of joint angle on flexion and the mean time to maximal flexion for each joint.

The researchers found a strong correlation between flexion of the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, the Swollen Hand Joint Count, and the Tender Hand Joint Count. DIP flexion was found to be a significant predictor of low disease activity/remission and high disease activity, the researchers reported in their abstract.

“This blows you away — that a single camera on [one’s] smartphone can look at the manipulation of a hand … and that AI can tell me, there’s a chance this might be an inflammatory arthritis,” said Dr. Wells, noting that researchers are also developing ways to detect joint swelling in RA by AI.

AI can also be used for remote ultrasound scanning in RA, as evidenced by use of the ARTHUR system in Europe, he said. Developed by the Danish company ROPCA, the ARTHUR technology (Rheumatoid Arthritis Ultrasound Robot) interacts directly with the patient who has new joint pain or established RA to capture ultrasound images in grayscale and color flow of 11 joints per hand. AI analyzes the images and creates a report for the specialist.

“They’re trying to get a foothold in the US,” Dr. Wells said, sharing his prediction that similar technology will someday be seen not only in pharmacies but also — in support of equitable access — in locations such as grocery stores. “Again,” he said, “nothing will replace us. I’m taking all [such] information and saying, who needs to be seen in 7 days and who can wait.”
 

AI for Writing, for Improving Practice and Patient Care

To manage his “task overload,” Dr. Cush uses ChatGPT for jobs such as first drafts of articles and making PowerPoint slides. It must be used cautiously for medical writing, however, as inaccuracies and false data/fabricated information — some of which has been coined AI “hallucinations” — are not uncommon.

“It’s very good at manuscript drafts, at generating bibliographies … it can do systematic reviews, it can do network meta-analyses, and it can find trends and patterns that can very helpful when it comes to writing. But you have to know how it’s a tool, and how it can hurt you,” he said.

Researchers recently reported asking ChatGPT to write an editorial about “how AI may replace the rheumatologist in editorial writing,” Dr. Cush noted. ChatGPT was “very politically correct,” he quipped, because it wrote that AI is “a tool to help the rheumatologist, but not replace him.”

Publishers want to preserve human intelligence — critical thinking and the ability to interpret, for instance — and most of the top medical journals (those most often cited) have issued guidance on the use of generative AI. “One said AI can’t be attributed as an author because being an author carries with it accountability of the work, and AI can’t take responsibility,” Dr. Cush said. Journals also “are saying you can use AI but you have to be totally transparent about it … [how it’s used] has to be very well spelled out.”

In practice, chatbots can be used for summarizing medical records, drafting post-visit summaries, collecting patient feedback, reminding about vaccinations, and performing administrative functions. “It’s really limitless as to what chatbots can do,” Dr. Cush said. “The question is, [what is] really going to help you?”

Much of the research submitted for presentation at major rheumatology meetings over the years has had questionable real-world utility and value, he said. But in the future this will likely change. “Take the PsA [psoriatic arthritis] patient who hasn’t responded to methotrexate or apremilast [Otezla]. There are [so many] choices, and there really isn’t a clear one. Shouldn’t data guide us on whether an IL-23 is better than a JAK, or maybe a JAK preferred over a TNF for some reason?” Dr. Cush said. “That’s what we’re hoping will happen down the line.”

More realistic AI-guided clinical scenarios for now include the following: AI screens the chart of a 68-year-old with RA on methotrexate and etanercept who is following up, and retrieves pieces of history — an elevated C-reactive protein 3 months ago, for instance, and diverticulosis 5 years ago. “AI tells you, based on this, he may have active disease, and here are three medications covered by his insurance,” Dr. Wells said.

Or, in the case of a 58-year-old patient with RA who has scheduled a virtual follow-up visit after having been on methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine for 12 weeks, AI detects a low platelet count in her previsit labs and also sees that she received an MMR booster 5 weeks ago at a local CVS Minute Clinic. AI retrieves for the rheumatologist a review article about thrombocytopenic purpura after MMR vaccination.
 

AI for Drug Development, Clinical Trials

Dr. Cush is following with keen interest the integration of AI into the process of drug development, from drug discovery and biomarker evaluation to clinical trial efficiency and patient recruitment, as well as marketing. “A lot hasn’t been ‘rolled out’ or shown to us, but there’s a lot going on … everyone is investing,” he said. “The number one challenge is regulatory: How will the [Food and Drug Administration] handle AI-generated data sets or AI-generated or monitored trials?”

The FDA is working to ensure quality and utility of data and is rapidly “approving AI algorithms for use in medicine and healthcare,” he said.

AI’s ability to identify patients in populations can not only facilitate earlier diagnoses but can accelerate patient recruitment for clinical trials, Dr. Cush emphasized. He pointed to research presented at the ACR 2021 annual meeting in which a machine-learning algorithm was used with electronic health records in the United Kingdom to estimate the probability of a patient’s being diagnosed with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

AI identified 89 best clinical predictors (out of 820 analyzed). When applying these predictors to the population, AI was able to differentiate patients with axSpA from healthy controls with a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 81%. Such an application of AI “is ideal … It would make clinical trials more streamlined and productive,” he said.

The extent to which AI will lead to cost savings — in the pharmacology arena, for instance, or for Well’s medical group — is unknown, Dr. Cush and Dr. Wells said. And, of course, there are concerns about potential bias and abuse of AI. “The worry,” Dr. Cush said, “is, who’s watching?”

Dr. Wells disclosed that he has research support and has served as a member of advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for 17 different pharmaceutical or medical technology companies. Dr. Cush disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

A Maryland firm that oversees the nation’s largest independent network of primary care medical practices is facing a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it cheated Medicare out of millions of dollars using billing software “rigged” to make patients appear sicker than they were.

The civil suit alleges that Aledade Inc.’s billing apps and other software and guidance provided to doctors improperly boosted revenues by adding overstated medical diagnoses to patients’ electronic medical records.

“Aledade did whatever it took to make patients appear sicker than they were,” according to the suit.

For example, the suit alleges that Aledade “conflated” anxiety into depression, which could boost payments by $3300 a year per patient. And Aledade decided that patients over 65 years old who said they had more than one drink per day had substance use issues, which could bring in $3680 extra per patient, the suit says.

The whistleblower case was filed by Khushwinder Singh in federal court in Seattle in 2021 but remained under seal until January of this year. Singh, a “senior medical director of risk and wellness product” at Aledade from January 2021 through May 2021, alleges the company fired him after he objected to its “fraudulent course of conduct,” according to the suit. He declined to comment on the suit.

The case is pending, and Aledade has yet to file a legal response in court. Julie Bataille, Aledade’s senior vice president for communications, denied the allegations, saying in an interview that “the whole case is totally baseless and meritless.”

Based in Bethesda, Maryland, Aledade helps manage independent primary care clinics and medical offices in more than 40 states, serving some 2 million people.

Aledade is one of hundreds of groups known as accountable care organizations. ACOs enjoy strong support from federal health officials who hope they can keep people healthier and achieve measurable cost savings.

Aledade was co-founded in 2014 by Farzad Mostashari, a former health information technology chief in the Obama administration, and has welcomed other ex-government health figures into its ranks. In June 2023, President Joe Biden appointed Mandy Cohen, then executive vice president at Aledade, to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Aledade has grown rapidly behind hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital financing and was valued at $3.5 billion in 2023.

Mostashari, Aledade’s chief executive officer, declined to be interviewed on the record.

“As this is an active legal matter, we will not respond to individual allegations in the complaint,” Aledade said in a statement to KFF Health News. “We remain focused on our top priority of delivering high-quality, value-based care with our physician partners and will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law.”

The lawsuit also names as defendants 19 independent physician practices, many in small cities in Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. According to the suit, the doctors knowingly used Aledade software to trigger illegal billings, a practice known in the medical industry as “upcoding.” None has filed an answer in court.

More than two dozen whistleblower lawsuits, some dating back more than a decade, have accused Medicare health plans of overcharging the government by billing for medical conditions not supported by patient medical records. These cases have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. In September 2023, Cigna agreed to pay $37 million to settle one such case, for instance.

But the whistleblower suit filed against Aledade appears to be the first to allege upcoding within accountable care organizations, which describe part of their mission as foiling wasteful spending. ACOs including Aledade made headlines recently for helping to expose an alleged massive Medicare fraud involving urinary catheters, for instance.

Finding the ‘Gravy’

Singh’s suit targets Aledade’s use of coding software and guidance to medical practices that joined its network. Some doctors treated patients on standard Medicare through the ACO networks, while others cared for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, according to the suit.

Medicare Advantage is a privately run alternative to standard Medicare that has surged in popularity and now cares for more than 30 million people. Aledade has sought to expand its services to Medicare Advantage enrollees.

The lawsuit alleges Aledade encouraged doctors to tack on suspect medical diagnoses that paid extra money. Aledade called it finding “the gravy sitting in the [patient’s] chart,” according to the suit.

The company “instructed” providers to diagnose diabetes with complications, “even if the patient’s diabetes was under control or the complicating factor no longer existed,” according to the suit.

Some medical practices in Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia billed the inflated code for more than 90% of their Medicare Advantage patients with diabetes, according to the suit.

The lawsuit also alleges that Aledade “rigged” the software to change a diagnosis of overweight to “morbid obesity,” which could pay about $2500 more per patient. Some providers coded morbid obesity for patients on traditional Medicare at 10 times the national average, according to the suit.

“This fraudulent coding guidance was known as ‘Aledade gospel,’ ” according to the suit, and following it “paid dividends in the form of millions of dollars in increased revenue.”

These tactics “usurped” the clinical judgment of doctors, according to the suit.

‘No Diagnosis Left Behind’

In its statement to KFF Health News, Aledade said its software offers doctors a range of data and guidance that helps them evaluate and treat patients.

“Aledade’s independent physicians remain solely responsible for all medical decision-making for their patients,” the statement read.

The company said it will “continue to advocate for changes to improve Medicare’s risk adjustment process to promote accuracy while also reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.”

In a message to employees and partner practices sent on Feb. 29, Mostashari noted that the Justice Department had declined to take over the False Claims Act case.

“We recently learned that the federal government has declined to join the case U.S. ex rel. Khushwinder Singh v. Aledade, Inc., et al. That’s good news, and a decision we wholeheartedly applaud given the baseless allegations about improper coding practices and wrongful termination brought by a former Aledade employee 3 years ago. We do not yet know how the full legal situation will play out but will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law,” the statement said.

The Justice Department advised the Seattle court on Jan. 9 that it would not intervene in the case “at this time,” which prompted an order to unseal it, court records show. Under the false claims law, whistleblowers can proceed with the case on their own. The Justice Department does not state a reason for declining a case but has said in other court cases that doing so has no bearing on its merits.

Singh argues in his complaint that many “unsupported” diagnosis codes were added during annual “wellness visits” and that they did not result in the patients receiving any additional medical care.

Aledade maintained Slack channels in which doctors could discuss the financial incentives for adding higher-paying diagnostic codes, according to the suit.

The company also closely monitored how doctors coded as part of an initiative dubbed “no diagnosis left behind,” according to the suit.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

A Maryland firm that oversees the nation’s largest independent network of primary care medical practices is facing a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it cheated Medicare out of millions of dollars using billing software “rigged” to make patients appear sicker than they were.

The civil suit alleges that Aledade Inc.’s billing apps and other software and guidance provided to doctors improperly boosted revenues by adding overstated medical diagnoses to patients’ electronic medical records.

“Aledade did whatever it took to make patients appear sicker than they were,” according to the suit.

For example, the suit alleges that Aledade “conflated” anxiety into depression, which could boost payments by $3300 a year per patient. And Aledade decided that patients over 65 years old who said they had more than one drink per day had substance use issues, which could bring in $3680 extra per patient, the suit says.

The whistleblower case was filed by Khushwinder Singh in federal court in Seattle in 2021 but remained under seal until January of this year. Singh, a “senior medical director of risk and wellness product” at Aledade from January 2021 through May 2021, alleges the company fired him after he objected to its “fraudulent course of conduct,” according to the suit. He declined to comment on the suit.

The case is pending, and Aledade has yet to file a legal response in court. Julie Bataille, Aledade’s senior vice president for communications, denied the allegations, saying in an interview that “the whole case is totally baseless and meritless.”

Based in Bethesda, Maryland, Aledade helps manage independent primary care clinics and medical offices in more than 40 states, serving some 2 million people.

Aledade is one of hundreds of groups known as accountable care organizations. ACOs enjoy strong support from federal health officials who hope they can keep people healthier and achieve measurable cost savings.

Aledade was co-founded in 2014 by Farzad Mostashari, a former health information technology chief in the Obama administration, and has welcomed other ex-government health figures into its ranks. In June 2023, President Joe Biden appointed Mandy Cohen, then executive vice president at Aledade, to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Aledade has grown rapidly behind hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital financing and was valued at $3.5 billion in 2023.

Mostashari, Aledade’s chief executive officer, declined to be interviewed on the record.

“As this is an active legal matter, we will not respond to individual allegations in the complaint,” Aledade said in a statement to KFF Health News. “We remain focused on our top priority of delivering high-quality, value-based care with our physician partners and will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law.”

The lawsuit also names as defendants 19 independent physician practices, many in small cities in Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. According to the suit, the doctors knowingly used Aledade software to trigger illegal billings, a practice known in the medical industry as “upcoding.” None has filed an answer in court.

More than two dozen whistleblower lawsuits, some dating back more than a decade, have accused Medicare health plans of overcharging the government by billing for medical conditions not supported by patient medical records. These cases have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. In September 2023, Cigna agreed to pay $37 million to settle one such case, for instance.

But the whistleblower suit filed against Aledade appears to be the first to allege upcoding within accountable care organizations, which describe part of their mission as foiling wasteful spending. ACOs including Aledade made headlines recently for helping to expose an alleged massive Medicare fraud involving urinary catheters, for instance.

Finding the ‘Gravy’

Singh’s suit targets Aledade’s use of coding software and guidance to medical practices that joined its network. Some doctors treated patients on standard Medicare through the ACO networks, while others cared for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, according to the suit.

Medicare Advantage is a privately run alternative to standard Medicare that has surged in popularity and now cares for more than 30 million people. Aledade has sought to expand its services to Medicare Advantage enrollees.

The lawsuit alleges Aledade encouraged doctors to tack on suspect medical diagnoses that paid extra money. Aledade called it finding “the gravy sitting in the [patient’s] chart,” according to the suit.

The company “instructed” providers to diagnose diabetes with complications, “even if the patient’s diabetes was under control or the complicating factor no longer existed,” according to the suit.

Some medical practices in Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia billed the inflated code for more than 90% of their Medicare Advantage patients with diabetes, according to the suit.

The lawsuit also alleges that Aledade “rigged” the software to change a diagnosis of overweight to “morbid obesity,” which could pay about $2500 more per patient. Some providers coded morbid obesity for patients on traditional Medicare at 10 times the national average, according to the suit.

“This fraudulent coding guidance was known as ‘Aledade gospel,’ ” according to the suit, and following it “paid dividends in the form of millions of dollars in increased revenue.”

These tactics “usurped” the clinical judgment of doctors, according to the suit.

‘No Diagnosis Left Behind’

In its statement to KFF Health News, Aledade said its software offers doctors a range of data and guidance that helps them evaluate and treat patients.

“Aledade’s independent physicians remain solely responsible for all medical decision-making for their patients,” the statement read.

The company said it will “continue to advocate for changes to improve Medicare’s risk adjustment process to promote accuracy while also reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.”

In a message to employees and partner practices sent on Feb. 29, Mostashari noted that the Justice Department had declined to take over the False Claims Act case.

“We recently learned that the federal government has declined to join the case U.S. ex rel. Khushwinder Singh v. Aledade, Inc., et al. That’s good news, and a decision we wholeheartedly applaud given the baseless allegations about improper coding practices and wrongful termination brought by a former Aledade employee 3 years ago. We do not yet know how the full legal situation will play out but will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law,” the statement said.

The Justice Department advised the Seattle court on Jan. 9 that it would not intervene in the case “at this time,” which prompted an order to unseal it, court records show. Under the false claims law, whistleblowers can proceed with the case on their own. The Justice Department does not state a reason for declining a case but has said in other court cases that doing so has no bearing on its merits.

Singh argues in his complaint that many “unsupported” diagnosis codes were added during annual “wellness visits” and that they did not result in the patients receiving any additional medical care.

Aledade maintained Slack channels in which doctors could discuss the financial incentives for adding higher-paying diagnostic codes, according to the suit.

The company also closely monitored how doctors coded as part of an initiative dubbed “no diagnosis left behind,” according to the suit.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

A Maryland firm that oversees the nation’s largest independent network of primary care medical practices is facing a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it cheated Medicare out of millions of dollars using billing software “rigged” to make patients appear sicker than they were.

The civil suit alleges that Aledade Inc.’s billing apps and other software and guidance provided to doctors improperly boosted revenues by adding overstated medical diagnoses to patients’ electronic medical records.

“Aledade did whatever it took to make patients appear sicker than they were,” according to the suit.

For example, the suit alleges that Aledade “conflated” anxiety into depression, which could boost payments by $3300 a year per patient. And Aledade decided that patients over 65 years old who said they had more than one drink per day had substance use issues, which could bring in $3680 extra per patient, the suit says.

The whistleblower case was filed by Khushwinder Singh in federal court in Seattle in 2021 but remained under seal until January of this year. Singh, a “senior medical director of risk and wellness product” at Aledade from January 2021 through May 2021, alleges the company fired him after he objected to its “fraudulent course of conduct,” according to the suit. He declined to comment on the suit.

The case is pending, and Aledade has yet to file a legal response in court. Julie Bataille, Aledade’s senior vice president for communications, denied the allegations, saying in an interview that “the whole case is totally baseless and meritless.”

Based in Bethesda, Maryland, Aledade helps manage independent primary care clinics and medical offices in more than 40 states, serving some 2 million people.

Aledade is one of hundreds of groups known as accountable care organizations. ACOs enjoy strong support from federal health officials who hope they can keep people healthier and achieve measurable cost savings.

Aledade was co-founded in 2014 by Farzad Mostashari, a former health information technology chief in the Obama administration, and has welcomed other ex-government health figures into its ranks. In June 2023, President Joe Biden appointed Mandy Cohen, then executive vice president at Aledade, to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

Aledade has grown rapidly behind hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital financing and was valued at $3.5 billion in 2023.

Mostashari, Aledade’s chief executive officer, declined to be interviewed on the record.

“As this is an active legal matter, we will not respond to individual allegations in the complaint,” Aledade said in a statement to KFF Health News. “We remain focused on our top priority of delivering high-quality, value-based care with our physician partners and will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law.”

The lawsuit also names as defendants 19 independent physician practices, many in small cities in Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. According to the suit, the doctors knowingly used Aledade software to trigger illegal billings, a practice known in the medical industry as “upcoding.” None has filed an answer in court.

More than two dozen whistleblower lawsuits, some dating back more than a decade, have accused Medicare health plans of overcharging the government by billing for medical conditions not supported by patient medical records. These cases have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. In September 2023, Cigna agreed to pay $37 million to settle one such case, for instance.

But the whistleblower suit filed against Aledade appears to be the first to allege upcoding within accountable care organizations, which describe part of their mission as foiling wasteful spending. ACOs including Aledade made headlines recently for helping to expose an alleged massive Medicare fraud involving urinary catheters, for instance.

Finding the ‘Gravy’

Singh’s suit targets Aledade’s use of coding software and guidance to medical practices that joined its network. Some doctors treated patients on standard Medicare through the ACO networks, while others cared for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, according to the suit.

Medicare Advantage is a privately run alternative to standard Medicare that has surged in popularity and now cares for more than 30 million people. Aledade has sought to expand its services to Medicare Advantage enrollees.

The lawsuit alleges Aledade encouraged doctors to tack on suspect medical diagnoses that paid extra money. Aledade called it finding “the gravy sitting in the [patient’s] chart,” according to the suit.

The company “instructed” providers to diagnose diabetes with complications, “even if the patient’s diabetes was under control or the complicating factor no longer existed,” according to the suit.

Some medical practices in Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia billed the inflated code for more than 90% of their Medicare Advantage patients with diabetes, according to the suit.

The lawsuit also alleges that Aledade “rigged” the software to change a diagnosis of overweight to “morbid obesity,” which could pay about $2500 more per patient. Some providers coded morbid obesity for patients on traditional Medicare at 10 times the national average, according to the suit.

“This fraudulent coding guidance was known as ‘Aledade gospel,’ ” according to the suit, and following it “paid dividends in the form of millions of dollars in increased revenue.”

These tactics “usurped” the clinical judgment of doctors, according to the suit.

‘No Diagnosis Left Behind’

In its statement to KFF Health News, Aledade said its software offers doctors a range of data and guidance that helps them evaluate and treat patients.

“Aledade’s independent physicians remain solely responsible for all medical decision-making for their patients,” the statement read.

The company said it will “continue to advocate for changes to improve Medicare’s risk adjustment process to promote accuracy while also reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.”

In a message to employees and partner practices sent on Feb. 29, Mostashari noted that the Justice Department had declined to take over the False Claims Act case.

“We recently learned that the federal government has declined to join the case U.S. ex rel. Khushwinder Singh v. Aledade, Inc., et al. That’s good news, and a decision we wholeheartedly applaud given the baseless allegations about improper coding practices and wrongful termination brought by a former Aledade employee 3 years ago. We do not yet know how the full legal situation will play out but will defend ourselves vigorously if needed in a court of law,” the statement said.

The Justice Department advised the Seattle court on Jan. 9 that it would not intervene in the case “at this time,” which prompted an order to unseal it, court records show. Under the false claims law, whistleblowers can proceed with the case on their own. The Justice Department does not state a reason for declining a case but has said in other court cases that doing so has no bearing on its merits.

Singh argues in his complaint that many “unsupported” diagnosis codes were added during annual “wellness visits” and that they did not result in the patients receiving any additional medical care.

Aledade maintained Slack channels in which doctors could discuss the financial incentives for adding higher-paying diagnostic codes, according to the suit.

The company also closely monitored how doctors coded as part of an initiative dubbed “no diagnosis left behind,” according to the suit.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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