User login
Win! CMS reins in prior authorization
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
According to a rule issued by CMS, starting in 2026, health plans must decide on prior authorization requests within 72 hours for an expedited request or 7 days for non-urgent appeals.
The rule also requires plans to provide a detailed rationale for a denial and include metrics on denials and approvals.
AGA and our allies in the physician community have aggressively advocated that Congress and the Administration address prior auth, which slows patient access to care and contributes to physician burnout.
The rule applies to Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Plans (CHIP), and qualified health plans on the exchange.
Thank you to our advocates who called on policymakers to take action to ensure patients receive care in a timely manner.
AGA sharpens focus on women
“Women continue to face unique barriers to leadership including gender bias, lack of role models, maternal discrimination, and lack of equal consideration for opportunities,” notes AGA President Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF. “AGA sits in a unique position where we can influence changes in academia and practice to improve the field for all women and particularly enhance women leaders.”
A tangible way AGA supports female leadership and career advancement is the Women in GI Regional Workshops. Throughout 2024, these workshops provide opportunities for networking, business and financial education training, burnout prevention strategies, and career advice.
Bigger picture, AGA’s Gender Equity Framework paints a compelling vision for the future in six domains:
- Bias & gender disparities: Academic institutions, healthcare systems, and practices establish regular systems of equity reviews and eradicate institutional gender disparities and bias.
- Leadership & career advancement: Equitable access to leadership in the field and professional GI societies for the benefit of medicine, research, and patient care.
- Wellness & balance: Women in GI experience balanced integration of family, work, community, health, and professional growth.
- Retention & recruitment: GI is the leading specialty for women in medicine and a sustainable career where women grow and thrive.
- Mentorship & sponsorship: The benefits of mentorship and sponsorship are universally recognized and incentivized in GI institutions and practices.
- Recognition: Equitable recognition of the achievements and contributions of women in GI.
In the coming years, AGA committees will collaborate with the AGA Women’s Committee to achieve the vision laid out in the AGA Gender Equity Framework. Thank you to the AGA Women’s Committee, which created the framework, under the leadership of chair Aimee Lucas, MD, MS, AGAF, and within the auspices of the AGA Equity Project (gastro.org/equity).
“Women continue to face unique barriers to leadership including gender bias, lack of role models, maternal discrimination, and lack of equal consideration for opportunities,” notes AGA President Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF. “AGA sits in a unique position where we can influence changes in academia and practice to improve the field for all women and particularly enhance women leaders.”
A tangible way AGA supports female leadership and career advancement is the Women in GI Regional Workshops. Throughout 2024, these workshops provide opportunities for networking, business and financial education training, burnout prevention strategies, and career advice.
Bigger picture, AGA’s Gender Equity Framework paints a compelling vision for the future in six domains:
- Bias & gender disparities: Academic institutions, healthcare systems, and practices establish regular systems of equity reviews and eradicate institutional gender disparities and bias.
- Leadership & career advancement: Equitable access to leadership in the field and professional GI societies for the benefit of medicine, research, and patient care.
- Wellness & balance: Women in GI experience balanced integration of family, work, community, health, and professional growth.
- Retention & recruitment: GI is the leading specialty for women in medicine and a sustainable career where women grow and thrive.
- Mentorship & sponsorship: The benefits of mentorship and sponsorship are universally recognized and incentivized in GI institutions and practices.
- Recognition: Equitable recognition of the achievements and contributions of women in GI.
In the coming years, AGA committees will collaborate with the AGA Women’s Committee to achieve the vision laid out in the AGA Gender Equity Framework. Thank you to the AGA Women’s Committee, which created the framework, under the leadership of chair Aimee Lucas, MD, MS, AGAF, and within the auspices of the AGA Equity Project (gastro.org/equity).
“Women continue to face unique barriers to leadership including gender bias, lack of role models, maternal discrimination, and lack of equal consideration for opportunities,” notes AGA President Barbara Jung, MD, AGAF. “AGA sits in a unique position where we can influence changes in academia and practice to improve the field for all women and particularly enhance women leaders.”
A tangible way AGA supports female leadership and career advancement is the Women in GI Regional Workshops. Throughout 2024, these workshops provide opportunities for networking, business and financial education training, burnout prevention strategies, and career advice.
Bigger picture, AGA’s Gender Equity Framework paints a compelling vision for the future in six domains:
- Bias & gender disparities: Academic institutions, healthcare systems, and practices establish regular systems of equity reviews and eradicate institutional gender disparities and bias.
- Leadership & career advancement: Equitable access to leadership in the field and professional GI societies for the benefit of medicine, research, and patient care.
- Wellness & balance: Women in GI experience balanced integration of family, work, community, health, and professional growth.
- Retention & recruitment: GI is the leading specialty for women in medicine and a sustainable career where women grow and thrive.
- Mentorship & sponsorship: The benefits of mentorship and sponsorship are universally recognized and incentivized in GI institutions and practices.
- Recognition: Equitable recognition of the achievements and contributions of women in GI.
In the coming years, AGA committees will collaborate with the AGA Women’s Committee to achieve the vision laid out in the AGA Gender Equity Framework. Thank you to the AGA Women’s Committee, which created the framework, under the leadership of chair Aimee Lucas, MD, MS, AGAF, and within the auspices of the AGA Equity Project (gastro.org/equity).
AGA members save on registration for DDW® 2024
ddw.org/register to join us.
This year, DDW takes place May 18-21, in Washington, D.C., and online. Whether you work in patient care, research, training or academia, you’ll find content tailored to your essential role at every step.
Add on to your DDW experience with AGA’s one-day Postgraduate Course. Join us on May 18, from D.C. or online, to explore challenging patient cases, high-impact papers, and important practice updates that you can use immediately upon your return to the clinic. Learn more at pgcourse.gastro.org.
ddw.org/register to join us.
This year, DDW takes place May 18-21, in Washington, D.C., and online. Whether you work in patient care, research, training or academia, you’ll find content tailored to your essential role at every step.
Add on to your DDW experience with AGA’s one-day Postgraduate Course. Join us on May 18, from D.C. or online, to explore challenging patient cases, high-impact papers, and important practice updates that you can use immediately upon your return to the clinic. Learn more at pgcourse.gastro.org.
ddw.org/register to join us.
This year, DDW takes place May 18-21, in Washington, D.C., and online. Whether you work in patient care, research, training or academia, you’ll find content tailored to your essential role at every step.
Add on to your DDW experience with AGA’s one-day Postgraduate Course. Join us on May 18, from D.C. or online, to explore challenging patient cases, high-impact papers, and important practice updates that you can use immediately upon your return to the clinic. Learn more at pgcourse.gastro.org.
CHEST grant winners to study health inequities related to air pollution, medication nonadherence, and more
In 2023, CHEST awarded $300,000 in clinical research and community impact grants to 15 individuals. Grant recipients are recognized for their scientifically meritorious achievements, with rigorous metrics to track their project’s progress, and have innovative, novel approaches to addressing their research topic.
CHEST grants have made a difference in patients’ lives by leading to breakthroughs in the treatment and/or management of chest diseases and patient care. This year’s grant-funded projects run the gamut of topics within chest medicine, ranging from lung cancer and COPD to tuberculosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Here’s a glimpse into two of this year’s grant winners and their projects.
For a full list of the 2023 grant winners, visit chestnet.org/grant-recipients.
Air pollution in sarcoidosis
This year, the John R. Addrizzo, MD, FCCP Research Grant in Sarcoidosis was awarded to Ali Mustafa, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD, for his project “Air Pollution in Sarcoidosis.”
The project’s aim is to investigate the feasibility of studying indoor and outdoor air pollution in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.
According to Dr. Mustafa’s application, pulmonary sarcoidosis is one of the most common interstitial lung diseases in the United States, and mortality due to sarcoidosis has risen by more than 3% in recent decades.
While the etiology of sarcoidosis remains elusive, evidence points toward a combination of genetic predisposition with external environmental triggers affecting disease onset. One small study of 16 individuals with fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis assessed the association between local levels of outdoor air pollutants to clinical outcomes. This study found that increased short-term exposure was associated with increased respiratory symptom severity and worse health-related quality of life.
Additionally, significant health disparities exist in sarcoidosis. Black individuals with sarcoidosis have worse pulmonary function, higher rates of multiorgan disease, and as much as a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Socioeconomic status and Black race have also been associated with increased exposure to air pollution and closer proximity to high toxic emission facilities, suggesting higher exposure to outdoor air pollution.
Racial disparities are present and particularly important in sarcoidosis. Black individuals are more likely to have more advanced disease at diagnosis, have a six-fold increase in hospitalization, and a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Little is known about the drivers of these disparities; however, environmental exposure has been implicated in sarcoidosis pathogenesis and incidence and may be an important contributor.
Dr. Mustafa’s preliminary work suggests disparities in exposure to air pollution among individuals with sarcoidosis may be contributing to inequities in clinical outcomes.
Determinants of medication non-adherence among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
The CHEST/ALA/ATS Respiratory Health Equity Research Award was given to Stephanie LaBedz, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago. The Respiratory Health Equity Research Award is jointly supported by the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, and CHEST.
Dr. LaBedz’s project, “Determinants of Medication Non-Adherence Among Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,” aims to use behavioral science theory to identify barriers and facilitators to COPD medication adherence.
Studies suggest racial minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely to be adherent to COPD medications compared with White and high SES patients with COPD. Interventions designed to improve COPD medication adherence must address barriers to adherence experienced by these groups to avoid perpetuating disparities in adherence and downstream outcomes disparities.
For her project, Dr. LaBedz will focus on examining barriers and facilitators of COPD medication adherence, including social determinants of health and other structural barriers faced by these vulnerable populations. She will use the information gained from the qualitative study to design interventions that address the barriers to adherence faced by these groups.
Her long-term goal is to improve COPD medication adherence in vulnerable patients with COPD in order to improve the health status and reduce health disparities experienced by racial/ethnic minority and low SES patients with COPD.
In 2023, CHEST awarded $300,000 in clinical research and community impact grants to 15 individuals. Grant recipients are recognized for their scientifically meritorious achievements, with rigorous metrics to track their project’s progress, and have innovative, novel approaches to addressing their research topic.
CHEST grants have made a difference in patients’ lives by leading to breakthroughs in the treatment and/or management of chest diseases and patient care. This year’s grant-funded projects run the gamut of topics within chest medicine, ranging from lung cancer and COPD to tuberculosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Here’s a glimpse into two of this year’s grant winners and their projects.
For a full list of the 2023 grant winners, visit chestnet.org/grant-recipients.
Air pollution in sarcoidosis
This year, the John R. Addrizzo, MD, FCCP Research Grant in Sarcoidosis was awarded to Ali Mustafa, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD, for his project “Air Pollution in Sarcoidosis.”
The project’s aim is to investigate the feasibility of studying indoor and outdoor air pollution in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.
According to Dr. Mustafa’s application, pulmonary sarcoidosis is one of the most common interstitial lung diseases in the United States, and mortality due to sarcoidosis has risen by more than 3% in recent decades.
While the etiology of sarcoidosis remains elusive, evidence points toward a combination of genetic predisposition with external environmental triggers affecting disease onset. One small study of 16 individuals with fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis assessed the association between local levels of outdoor air pollutants to clinical outcomes. This study found that increased short-term exposure was associated with increased respiratory symptom severity and worse health-related quality of life.
Additionally, significant health disparities exist in sarcoidosis. Black individuals with sarcoidosis have worse pulmonary function, higher rates of multiorgan disease, and as much as a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Socioeconomic status and Black race have also been associated with increased exposure to air pollution and closer proximity to high toxic emission facilities, suggesting higher exposure to outdoor air pollution.
Racial disparities are present and particularly important in sarcoidosis. Black individuals are more likely to have more advanced disease at diagnosis, have a six-fold increase in hospitalization, and a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Little is known about the drivers of these disparities; however, environmental exposure has been implicated in sarcoidosis pathogenesis and incidence and may be an important contributor.
Dr. Mustafa’s preliminary work suggests disparities in exposure to air pollution among individuals with sarcoidosis may be contributing to inequities in clinical outcomes.
Determinants of medication non-adherence among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
The CHEST/ALA/ATS Respiratory Health Equity Research Award was given to Stephanie LaBedz, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago. The Respiratory Health Equity Research Award is jointly supported by the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, and CHEST.
Dr. LaBedz’s project, “Determinants of Medication Non-Adherence Among Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,” aims to use behavioral science theory to identify barriers and facilitators to COPD medication adherence.
Studies suggest racial minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely to be adherent to COPD medications compared with White and high SES patients with COPD. Interventions designed to improve COPD medication adherence must address barriers to adherence experienced by these groups to avoid perpetuating disparities in adherence and downstream outcomes disparities.
For her project, Dr. LaBedz will focus on examining barriers and facilitators of COPD medication adherence, including social determinants of health and other structural barriers faced by these vulnerable populations. She will use the information gained from the qualitative study to design interventions that address the barriers to adherence faced by these groups.
Her long-term goal is to improve COPD medication adherence in vulnerable patients with COPD in order to improve the health status and reduce health disparities experienced by racial/ethnic minority and low SES patients with COPD.
In 2023, CHEST awarded $300,000 in clinical research and community impact grants to 15 individuals. Grant recipients are recognized for their scientifically meritorious achievements, with rigorous metrics to track their project’s progress, and have innovative, novel approaches to addressing their research topic.
CHEST grants have made a difference in patients’ lives by leading to breakthroughs in the treatment and/or management of chest diseases and patient care. This year’s grant-funded projects run the gamut of topics within chest medicine, ranging from lung cancer and COPD to tuberculosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
Here’s a glimpse into two of this year’s grant winners and their projects.
For a full list of the 2023 grant winners, visit chestnet.org/grant-recipients.
Air pollution in sarcoidosis
This year, the John R. Addrizzo, MD, FCCP Research Grant in Sarcoidosis was awarded to Ali Mustafa, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD, for his project “Air Pollution in Sarcoidosis.”
The project’s aim is to investigate the feasibility of studying indoor and outdoor air pollution in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis.
According to Dr. Mustafa’s application, pulmonary sarcoidosis is one of the most common interstitial lung diseases in the United States, and mortality due to sarcoidosis has risen by more than 3% in recent decades.
While the etiology of sarcoidosis remains elusive, evidence points toward a combination of genetic predisposition with external environmental triggers affecting disease onset. One small study of 16 individuals with fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis assessed the association between local levels of outdoor air pollutants to clinical outcomes. This study found that increased short-term exposure was associated with increased respiratory symptom severity and worse health-related quality of life.
Additionally, significant health disparities exist in sarcoidosis. Black individuals with sarcoidosis have worse pulmonary function, higher rates of multiorgan disease, and as much as a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Socioeconomic status and Black race have also been associated with increased exposure to air pollution and closer proximity to high toxic emission facilities, suggesting higher exposure to outdoor air pollution.
Racial disparities are present and particularly important in sarcoidosis. Black individuals are more likely to have more advanced disease at diagnosis, have a six-fold increase in hospitalization, and a 12-fold increase in mortality compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with sarcoidosis. Little is known about the drivers of these disparities; however, environmental exposure has been implicated in sarcoidosis pathogenesis and incidence and may be an important contributor.
Dr. Mustafa’s preliminary work suggests disparities in exposure to air pollution among individuals with sarcoidosis may be contributing to inequities in clinical outcomes.
Determinants of medication non-adherence among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
The CHEST/ALA/ATS Respiratory Health Equity Research Award was given to Stephanie LaBedz, MD, of the University of Illinois Chicago. The Respiratory Health Equity Research Award is jointly supported by the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, and CHEST.
Dr. LaBedz’s project, “Determinants of Medication Non-Adherence Among Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,” aims to use behavioral science theory to identify barriers and facilitators to COPD medication adherence.
Studies suggest racial minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely to be adherent to COPD medications compared with White and high SES patients with COPD. Interventions designed to improve COPD medication adherence must address barriers to adherence experienced by these groups to avoid perpetuating disparities in adherence and downstream outcomes disparities.
For her project, Dr. LaBedz will focus on examining barriers and facilitators of COPD medication adherence, including social determinants of health and other structural barriers faced by these vulnerable populations. She will use the information gained from the qualitative study to design interventions that address the barriers to adherence faced by these groups.
Her long-term goal is to improve COPD medication adherence in vulnerable patients with COPD in order to improve the health status and reduce health disparities experienced by racial/ethnic minority and low SES patients with COPD.
Should intensivists place PEG tubes in critically ill patients?
The practice of initiating early and adequate nutrition in critically ill patients is a cornerstone of ICU management. Adequate nutrition combats the dangerous catabolic state that accompanies critical illness. A few of the benefits of this practice are a decrease in disease severity with resultant lessened hospital and ICU lengths of stay, reduced infection rates, and a decrease in hospital mortality. Enteral nutrition (EN) is the route of nutritional support most associated with safe and effective provision of enhanced immunologic function and the ability to preserve the patient’s lean body mass while avoiding metabolic and infectious complications.
Since its inception in 1980, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have become the preferred method for delivering EN in ICUs across the United States. When comparing PEG and nasogastric tubes (NGTs), evidence shows reduced bleeding events, less tube dislodgement, and decreased tube obstructions with a faster rate of recovery of previous swallowing function that prevents delays in medical care and increased mortality rate. Although PEG tubes do not entirely prevent acid reflux or aspiration events, they are positively correlated to significantly reduced rates of both which result in a survival benefit seen in a 2012 study (Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012 Aug;66[5]:418).
The majority of PEG tubes placed in the United States has unquestionably shifted to the ICU patient population since 2014 according to the largest health care database search on this topic published in 2019 (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Jun;16[6]:724). The safety and efficacy of this procedure has only improved, yet the delayed timing of placement remains problematic and often exceeds what is medically necessary or financially feasible.
To understand this issue, it is important to consider that despite intensivists being globally recognized as procedurally sound with enhanced ultrasound expertise, their endoscopic experience is usually limited to bronchoscopy without formal training in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is the leading theory to explain why intensivists are performing their own percutaneous tracheostomies but not gastrostomies. Fortunately, the FDA-approved Point of Care Ultrasound Magnet Aligned Gastrostomy (PUMA-G) System has shown analogous safety and efficacy when compared with the traditional endoscopically placed PEG tube technique (J Intensive Care Med. 2022 May;37[5]:641).
A case series was published in 2021 that included three intensivists who underwent a 3-hour cadaver-based training course for the PUMA-G System with a mandatory minimum successful placement of three gastric tubes (J Clin Ultrasound. 2021 Jan;49[1]:28). Once they demonstrated competence in the technique, the procedure was performed on mechanically ventilated and sedated patients without any reported complications peri-procedurally or over the next 30 days. The evidence that intensivists can use their current skillset to rapidly become competent in this ultrasound-guided bedside procedure is without question.
PEG tube placement by intensivists is a procedure that will undoubtedly benefit patients in the ICU and assist in offloading the operation costs of a significant number of critical care units and their associated organizations. This is an area ripe for growth with further education and research.
The practice of initiating early and adequate nutrition in critically ill patients is a cornerstone of ICU management. Adequate nutrition combats the dangerous catabolic state that accompanies critical illness. A few of the benefits of this practice are a decrease in disease severity with resultant lessened hospital and ICU lengths of stay, reduced infection rates, and a decrease in hospital mortality. Enteral nutrition (EN) is the route of nutritional support most associated with safe and effective provision of enhanced immunologic function and the ability to preserve the patient’s lean body mass while avoiding metabolic and infectious complications.
Since its inception in 1980, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have become the preferred method for delivering EN in ICUs across the United States. When comparing PEG and nasogastric tubes (NGTs), evidence shows reduced bleeding events, less tube dislodgement, and decreased tube obstructions with a faster rate of recovery of previous swallowing function that prevents delays in medical care and increased mortality rate. Although PEG tubes do not entirely prevent acid reflux or aspiration events, they are positively correlated to significantly reduced rates of both which result in a survival benefit seen in a 2012 study (Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012 Aug;66[5]:418).
The majority of PEG tubes placed in the United States has unquestionably shifted to the ICU patient population since 2014 according to the largest health care database search on this topic published in 2019 (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Jun;16[6]:724). The safety and efficacy of this procedure has only improved, yet the delayed timing of placement remains problematic and often exceeds what is medically necessary or financially feasible.
To understand this issue, it is important to consider that despite intensivists being globally recognized as procedurally sound with enhanced ultrasound expertise, their endoscopic experience is usually limited to bronchoscopy without formal training in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is the leading theory to explain why intensivists are performing their own percutaneous tracheostomies but not gastrostomies. Fortunately, the FDA-approved Point of Care Ultrasound Magnet Aligned Gastrostomy (PUMA-G) System has shown analogous safety and efficacy when compared with the traditional endoscopically placed PEG tube technique (J Intensive Care Med. 2022 May;37[5]:641).
A case series was published in 2021 that included three intensivists who underwent a 3-hour cadaver-based training course for the PUMA-G System with a mandatory minimum successful placement of three gastric tubes (J Clin Ultrasound. 2021 Jan;49[1]:28). Once they demonstrated competence in the technique, the procedure was performed on mechanically ventilated and sedated patients without any reported complications peri-procedurally or over the next 30 days. The evidence that intensivists can use their current skillset to rapidly become competent in this ultrasound-guided bedside procedure is without question.
PEG tube placement by intensivists is a procedure that will undoubtedly benefit patients in the ICU and assist in offloading the operation costs of a significant number of critical care units and their associated organizations. This is an area ripe for growth with further education and research.
The practice of initiating early and adequate nutrition in critically ill patients is a cornerstone of ICU management. Adequate nutrition combats the dangerous catabolic state that accompanies critical illness. A few of the benefits of this practice are a decrease in disease severity with resultant lessened hospital and ICU lengths of stay, reduced infection rates, and a decrease in hospital mortality. Enteral nutrition (EN) is the route of nutritional support most associated with safe and effective provision of enhanced immunologic function and the ability to preserve the patient’s lean body mass while avoiding metabolic and infectious complications.
Since its inception in 1980, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have become the preferred method for delivering EN in ICUs across the United States. When comparing PEG and nasogastric tubes (NGTs), evidence shows reduced bleeding events, less tube dislodgement, and decreased tube obstructions with a faster rate of recovery of previous swallowing function that prevents delays in medical care and increased mortality rate. Although PEG tubes do not entirely prevent acid reflux or aspiration events, they are positively correlated to significantly reduced rates of both which result in a survival benefit seen in a 2012 study (Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012 Aug;66[5]:418).
The majority of PEG tubes placed in the United States has unquestionably shifted to the ICU patient population since 2014 according to the largest health care database search on this topic published in 2019 (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Jun;16[6]:724). The safety and efficacy of this procedure has only improved, yet the delayed timing of placement remains problematic and often exceeds what is medically necessary or financially feasible.
To understand this issue, it is important to consider that despite intensivists being globally recognized as procedurally sound with enhanced ultrasound expertise, their endoscopic experience is usually limited to bronchoscopy without formal training in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is the leading theory to explain why intensivists are performing their own percutaneous tracheostomies but not gastrostomies. Fortunately, the FDA-approved Point of Care Ultrasound Magnet Aligned Gastrostomy (PUMA-G) System has shown analogous safety and efficacy when compared with the traditional endoscopically placed PEG tube technique (J Intensive Care Med. 2022 May;37[5]:641).
A case series was published in 2021 that included three intensivists who underwent a 3-hour cadaver-based training course for the PUMA-G System with a mandatory minimum successful placement of three gastric tubes (J Clin Ultrasound. 2021 Jan;49[1]:28). Once they demonstrated competence in the technique, the procedure was performed on mechanically ventilated and sedated patients without any reported complications peri-procedurally or over the next 30 days. The evidence that intensivists can use their current skillset to rapidly become competent in this ultrasound-guided bedside procedure is without question.
PEG tube placement by intensivists is a procedure that will undoubtedly benefit patients in the ICU and assist in offloading the operation costs of a significant number of critical care units and their associated organizations. This is an area ripe for growth with further education and research.
Coding & Billing: A look into bronchoscopic codes and digital evaluations
Pulmonary physicians and particularly interventional bronchoscopists have been receiving denials when CPT® codes 31628 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial lung biopsy(s), single lobe and 31629 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial needle aspiration biopsy(s), trachea, main stem and/or lobar bronchus(i) are billed during the same procedure.
While the difference between a transbronchial forceps biopsy and transbronchial needle biopsy are obvious to bronchoscopists, there has been confusion with payers. This could have been partly on the basis of a CPT Assistant article from March 2021 describing the use of both codes that stated, “Note that performing two types of lung biopsy (forceps and needle aspiration) on the same lesion would be considered unusual and documentation of medical necessity should clearly describe why both types of biopsy were clinically necessary.” This may have been interpreted by coders and/or payers to mean that the two codes should be billed together rarely or not at all. It is also possible that computer-based coding programs (eg, Optum/Encoder Pro, etc) are responsible for these inappropriate denials. There are, however, no NCCI edits that disallow this nor was this the intent of the CPT codes when they were developed.
The previous statement from the CPT Assistant article was clarified in the following sentences, “For example, if needle aspiration were performed and immediate screening of the sample were insufficient for diagnosis, a forceps biopsy would be appropriate and reported separately. On the other hand, if a physician performed a needle aspiration out of concern that the lesion was vascular and found that it was not and proceeded with a forceps biopsy, then the needle aspiration would be integral to the forceps biopsy and not separately reported.” Importantly, with the increasing use of navigational bronchoscopy and robotic bronchoscopy, these codes will be used together more frequently, appropriately, and correctly, especially on distal lesions.
Remember, these codes are used for procedures in a single lobe. If multiple lobes are sampled then CPT codes 31632 and 31633 would be added to 31628 and 31629, respectively. If one is receiving denials for these procedures, coders and payers should be notified of these errors, and denials should be appealed.
Q&A
Question: My practice is wondering if we can use the newer codes for online digital E/M services? We know they are time-based, but we are confused about when they cannot be used. Can you please help? For example, I had an established COPD patient send a message through the electronic health record’s patient portal reporting new symptoms of headache, cough, and sputum production. They asked me to review the chest x-ray that was done two days prior when they went to urgent care. The patient is asking for an assessment and management plan. We message back and forth over the next day for a total of 13 minutes. Three days later, the patient developed more symptoms and then scheduled an office visit. How would I bill for this? 99212-99215 (Established Office E/M) or 99422 (Online digital E/M 11-20 minutes?
Answer: Online Digital E/M services (99421, 99422, 99423) are to be used for established patients, only. They are time-based codes and cumulative up to seven days. They are to be reported for asynchronous communication via HIPAA-compliance secure platforms, such as through the electronic health record portal, portal email, etc. They may not be reported if an E/M occurs within seven days before or after, though the time may be incorporated into the subsequent E/M. These codes are not to be used for communication of test results, scheduling of appointments, or other communication that does not include E/M. In your example, you would report the appropriate Office/ Outpatient Established CPT code (99212-99215).
99421 – Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 5-10 minutes
99422 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 11-20 minutes
99423 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 21 or more minutes
Question: Is Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit considered to be part of Critical Care services? (99291- 99292)? There appears to be confusion in our billing department on this issue.
Answer: 92959 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not bundled into 99291-99292. Consider it as a procedure. To code for this service in addition to Critical Care, the time for the CPR must be separate from the time for Critical Care (99291-99292). A separate procedure note must also be documented. There is no minimum time for this service, and a 25 modifier must be included, as well. 92950 reimburses at 4.00 wRVUs and may be reported two times per calendar day.
Originally published in the September 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.
Pulmonary physicians and particularly interventional bronchoscopists have been receiving denials when CPT® codes 31628 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial lung biopsy(s), single lobe and 31629 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial needle aspiration biopsy(s), trachea, main stem and/or lobar bronchus(i) are billed during the same procedure.
While the difference between a transbronchial forceps biopsy and transbronchial needle biopsy are obvious to bronchoscopists, there has been confusion with payers. This could have been partly on the basis of a CPT Assistant article from March 2021 describing the use of both codes that stated, “Note that performing two types of lung biopsy (forceps and needle aspiration) on the same lesion would be considered unusual and documentation of medical necessity should clearly describe why both types of biopsy were clinically necessary.” This may have been interpreted by coders and/or payers to mean that the two codes should be billed together rarely or not at all. It is also possible that computer-based coding programs (eg, Optum/Encoder Pro, etc) are responsible for these inappropriate denials. There are, however, no NCCI edits that disallow this nor was this the intent of the CPT codes when they were developed.
The previous statement from the CPT Assistant article was clarified in the following sentences, “For example, if needle aspiration were performed and immediate screening of the sample were insufficient for diagnosis, a forceps biopsy would be appropriate and reported separately. On the other hand, if a physician performed a needle aspiration out of concern that the lesion was vascular and found that it was not and proceeded with a forceps biopsy, then the needle aspiration would be integral to the forceps biopsy and not separately reported.” Importantly, with the increasing use of navigational bronchoscopy and robotic bronchoscopy, these codes will be used together more frequently, appropriately, and correctly, especially on distal lesions.
Remember, these codes are used for procedures in a single lobe. If multiple lobes are sampled then CPT codes 31632 and 31633 would be added to 31628 and 31629, respectively. If one is receiving denials for these procedures, coders and payers should be notified of these errors, and denials should be appealed.
Q&A
Question: My practice is wondering if we can use the newer codes for online digital E/M services? We know they are time-based, but we are confused about when they cannot be used. Can you please help? For example, I had an established COPD patient send a message through the electronic health record’s patient portal reporting new symptoms of headache, cough, and sputum production. They asked me to review the chest x-ray that was done two days prior when they went to urgent care. The patient is asking for an assessment and management plan. We message back and forth over the next day for a total of 13 minutes. Three days later, the patient developed more symptoms and then scheduled an office visit. How would I bill for this? 99212-99215 (Established Office E/M) or 99422 (Online digital E/M 11-20 minutes?
Answer: Online Digital E/M services (99421, 99422, 99423) are to be used for established patients, only. They are time-based codes and cumulative up to seven days. They are to be reported for asynchronous communication via HIPAA-compliance secure platforms, such as through the electronic health record portal, portal email, etc. They may not be reported if an E/M occurs within seven days before or after, though the time may be incorporated into the subsequent E/M. These codes are not to be used for communication of test results, scheduling of appointments, or other communication that does not include E/M. In your example, you would report the appropriate Office/ Outpatient Established CPT code (99212-99215).
99421 – Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 5-10 minutes
99422 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 11-20 minutes
99423 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 21 or more minutes
Question: Is Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit considered to be part of Critical Care services? (99291- 99292)? There appears to be confusion in our billing department on this issue.
Answer: 92959 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not bundled into 99291-99292. Consider it as a procedure. To code for this service in addition to Critical Care, the time for the CPR must be separate from the time for Critical Care (99291-99292). A separate procedure note must also be documented. There is no minimum time for this service, and a 25 modifier must be included, as well. 92950 reimburses at 4.00 wRVUs and may be reported two times per calendar day.
Originally published in the September 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.
Pulmonary physicians and particularly interventional bronchoscopists have been receiving denials when CPT® codes 31628 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial lung biopsy(s), single lobe and 31629 Bronchoscopy, rigid or flexible, including fluoroscopic guidance, when performed; with transbronchial needle aspiration biopsy(s), trachea, main stem and/or lobar bronchus(i) are billed during the same procedure.
While the difference between a transbronchial forceps biopsy and transbronchial needle biopsy are obvious to bronchoscopists, there has been confusion with payers. This could have been partly on the basis of a CPT Assistant article from March 2021 describing the use of both codes that stated, “Note that performing two types of lung biopsy (forceps and needle aspiration) on the same lesion would be considered unusual and documentation of medical necessity should clearly describe why both types of biopsy were clinically necessary.” This may have been interpreted by coders and/or payers to mean that the two codes should be billed together rarely or not at all. It is also possible that computer-based coding programs (eg, Optum/Encoder Pro, etc) are responsible for these inappropriate denials. There are, however, no NCCI edits that disallow this nor was this the intent of the CPT codes when they were developed.
The previous statement from the CPT Assistant article was clarified in the following sentences, “For example, if needle aspiration were performed and immediate screening of the sample were insufficient for diagnosis, a forceps biopsy would be appropriate and reported separately. On the other hand, if a physician performed a needle aspiration out of concern that the lesion was vascular and found that it was not and proceeded with a forceps biopsy, then the needle aspiration would be integral to the forceps biopsy and not separately reported.” Importantly, with the increasing use of navigational bronchoscopy and robotic bronchoscopy, these codes will be used together more frequently, appropriately, and correctly, especially on distal lesions.
Remember, these codes are used for procedures in a single lobe. If multiple lobes are sampled then CPT codes 31632 and 31633 would be added to 31628 and 31629, respectively. If one is receiving denials for these procedures, coders and payers should be notified of these errors, and denials should be appealed.
Q&A
Question: My practice is wondering if we can use the newer codes for online digital E/M services? We know they are time-based, but we are confused about when they cannot be used. Can you please help? For example, I had an established COPD patient send a message through the electronic health record’s patient portal reporting new symptoms of headache, cough, and sputum production. They asked me to review the chest x-ray that was done two days prior when they went to urgent care. The patient is asking for an assessment and management plan. We message back and forth over the next day for a total of 13 minutes. Three days later, the patient developed more symptoms and then scheduled an office visit. How would I bill for this? 99212-99215 (Established Office E/M) or 99422 (Online digital E/M 11-20 minutes?
Answer: Online Digital E/M services (99421, 99422, 99423) are to be used for established patients, only. They are time-based codes and cumulative up to seven days. They are to be reported for asynchronous communication via HIPAA-compliance secure platforms, such as through the electronic health record portal, portal email, etc. They may not be reported if an E/M occurs within seven days before or after, though the time may be incorporated into the subsequent E/M. These codes are not to be used for communication of test results, scheduling of appointments, or other communication that does not include E/M. In your example, you would report the appropriate Office/ Outpatient Established CPT code (99212-99215).
99421 – Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 5-10 minutes
99422 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 11-20 minutes
99423 - Online digital evaluation and management service, for an established patient, for up to 7 days, cumulative time during the 7 days; 21 or more minutes
Question: Is Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Intensive Care Unit considered to be part of Critical Care services? (99291- 99292)? There appears to be confusion in our billing department on this issue.
Answer: 92959 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not bundled into 99291-99292. Consider it as a procedure. To code for this service in addition to Critical Care, the time for the CPR must be separate from the time for Critical Care (99291-99292). A separate procedure note must also be documented. There is no minimum time for this service, and a 25 modifier must be included, as well. 92950 reimburses at 4.00 wRVUs and may be reported two times per calendar day.
Originally published in the September 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.
CHEST introduces five core organizational values
Looking ahead to 2024, one notable accomplishment of the past 12 months that will guide our organization for years to come was to establish CHEST organizational values. The result of a collaborative process that was led by the Value-Setting Work Group and informed by CHEST leaders, members, and staff, the CHEST values are Community, Inclusivity, Innovation, Advocacy, and Integrity.
The process to arrive at these values was intentionally designed to ensure input from all corners of the organization. Over the course of 5 months, CHEST members had the opportunity to participate in focus groups or submit written feedback about the proposed values. The feedback shaped subsequent iterations of the values that the work group produced, finally arriving at these five.
“These values are meant to be reflective of the CHEST organization and all of its leaders, members, and staff,” said Co-Chair of the Value-Setting Work Group and CHEST Board of Regents Member Nneka Sederstrom, PhD, FCCP. “As a society, we’ve come to a point where we can’t pretend that real life issues don’t matter to our patients and to our members. It’s become a pivotal point in our world for our systems to be clear on who they are. All too often, the question of, ‘Is this our lane?’ comes up. These values are a succinct way to show not only what falls into our ‘lane,’ but that we celebrate where we stand. It was a big undertaking, but seeing the collaboration and passion was exceptional.”
The work group was co-chaired by Dr. Sederstrom and Elizabeth Stigler, PhD, and was supported by David Zielinski, MD, FCCP; Bravein Amalakuhan, MD; Alisha Young, MD; Steven Simpson, MD, FCCP; Nehan Sher, MD; and CHEST staff members, Teresa Rodriguez, Manager, CHEST Annual Meeting; Terri Horton-O’Connell, MSW, Director, Grant and Proposal Development; and Vanessa Rancine, Recruiting Specialist.
Beyond solidifying the five succinct values, the work group strategically defined each value to clarify its intent.
- Community: We invest in the support, growth, and development of everyone involved with CHEST, both individually and collectively, and are tireless champions for one another.
- Inclusivity: We cherish the diverse perspectives and experiences of our community members and amplify their unique voices.
- Innovation: We strive for excellence in all that we do with an adaptable and ever-evolving perspective. We pursue bold, future-oriented possibilities for constant improvement and continual growth.
- Advocacy: We courageously and intentionally create and foster positive changes for our patients and their families, our members and staff, and the next generation of CHEST clinicians.
- Integrity: We take pride in acting responsibly with respect, honesty, and accountability that engenders trust.
“With the new values in place, hopefully, our members will feel a shift in how we, as an organization, show up when anything occurs,” Dr. Sederstrom said. “The values will be reflected through community engagement and support and will be deeply integrated into the CHEST Annual Meeting. When someone asks CHEST, ‘Who are you?’ -we can now answer it with certitude.”
Looking ahead to 2024, one notable accomplishment of the past 12 months that will guide our organization for years to come was to establish CHEST organizational values. The result of a collaborative process that was led by the Value-Setting Work Group and informed by CHEST leaders, members, and staff, the CHEST values are Community, Inclusivity, Innovation, Advocacy, and Integrity.
The process to arrive at these values was intentionally designed to ensure input from all corners of the organization. Over the course of 5 months, CHEST members had the opportunity to participate in focus groups or submit written feedback about the proposed values. The feedback shaped subsequent iterations of the values that the work group produced, finally arriving at these five.
“These values are meant to be reflective of the CHEST organization and all of its leaders, members, and staff,” said Co-Chair of the Value-Setting Work Group and CHEST Board of Regents Member Nneka Sederstrom, PhD, FCCP. “As a society, we’ve come to a point where we can’t pretend that real life issues don’t matter to our patients and to our members. It’s become a pivotal point in our world for our systems to be clear on who they are. All too often, the question of, ‘Is this our lane?’ comes up. These values are a succinct way to show not only what falls into our ‘lane,’ but that we celebrate where we stand. It was a big undertaking, but seeing the collaboration and passion was exceptional.”
The work group was co-chaired by Dr. Sederstrom and Elizabeth Stigler, PhD, and was supported by David Zielinski, MD, FCCP; Bravein Amalakuhan, MD; Alisha Young, MD; Steven Simpson, MD, FCCP; Nehan Sher, MD; and CHEST staff members, Teresa Rodriguez, Manager, CHEST Annual Meeting; Terri Horton-O’Connell, MSW, Director, Grant and Proposal Development; and Vanessa Rancine, Recruiting Specialist.
Beyond solidifying the five succinct values, the work group strategically defined each value to clarify its intent.
- Community: We invest in the support, growth, and development of everyone involved with CHEST, both individually and collectively, and are tireless champions for one another.
- Inclusivity: We cherish the diverse perspectives and experiences of our community members and amplify their unique voices.
- Innovation: We strive for excellence in all that we do with an adaptable and ever-evolving perspective. We pursue bold, future-oriented possibilities for constant improvement and continual growth.
- Advocacy: We courageously and intentionally create and foster positive changes for our patients and their families, our members and staff, and the next generation of CHEST clinicians.
- Integrity: We take pride in acting responsibly with respect, honesty, and accountability that engenders trust.
“With the new values in place, hopefully, our members will feel a shift in how we, as an organization, show up when anything occurs,” Dr. Sederstrom said. “The values will be reflected through community engagement and support and will be deeply integrated into the CHEST Annual Meeting. When someone asks CHEST, ‘Who are you?’ -we can now answer it with certitude.”
Looking ahead to 2024, one notable accomplishment of the past 12 months that will guide our organization for years to come was to establish CHEST organizational values. The result of a collaborative process that was led by the Value-Setting Work Group and informed by CHEST leaders, members, and staff, the CHEST values are Community, Inclusivity, Innovation, Advocacy, and Integrity.
The process to arrive at these values was intentionally designed to ensure input from all corners of the organization. Over the course of 5 months, CHEST members had the opportunity to participate in focus groups or submit written feedback about the proposed values. The feedback shaped subsequent iterations of the values that the work group produced, finally arriving at these five.
“These values are meant to be reflective of the CHEST organization and all of its leaders, members, and staff,” said Co-Chair of the Value-Setting Work Group and CHEST Board of Regents Member Nneka Sederstrom, PhD, FCCP. “As a society, we’ve come to a point where we can’t pretend that real life issues don’t matter to our patients and to our members. It’s become a pivotal point in our world for our systems to be clear on who they are. All too often, the question of, ‘Is this our lane?’ comes up. These values are a succinct way to show not only what falls into our ‘lane,’ but that we celebrate where we stand. It was a big undertaking, but seeing the collaboration and passion was exceptional.”
The work group was co-chaired by Dr. Sederstrom and Elizabeth Stigler, PhD, and was supported by David Zielinski, MD, FCCP; Bravein Amalakuhan, MD; Alisha Young, MD; Steven Simpson, MD, FCCP; Nehan Sher, MD; and CHEST staff members, Teresa Rodriguez, Manager, CHEST Annual Meeting; Terri Horton-O’Connell, MSW, Director, Grant and Proposal Development; and Vanessa Rancine, Recruiting Specialist.
Beyond solidifying the five succinct values, the work group strategically defined each value to clarify its intent.
- Community: We invest in the support, growth, and development of everyone involved with CHEST, both individually and collectively, and are tireless champions for one another.
- Inclusivity: We cherish the diverse perspectives and experiences of our community members and amplify their unique voices.
- Innovation: We strive for excellence in all that we do with an adaptable and ever-evolving perspective. We pursue bold, future-oriented possibilities for constant improvement and continual growth.
- Advocacy: We courageously and intentionally create and foster positive changes for our patients and their families, our members and staff, and the next generation of CHEST clinicians.
- Integrity: We take pride in acting responsibly with respect, honesty, and accountability that engenders trust.
“With the new values in place, hopefully, our members will feel a shift in how we, as an organization, show up when anything occurs,” Dr. Sederstrom said. “The values will be reflected through community engagement and support and will be deeply integrated into the CHEST Annual Meeting. When someone asks CHEST, ‘Who are you?’ -we can now answer it with certitude.”
Elevate Your Career: AGA Women in GI Regional Workshops Await
As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat.
Expanded to six workshops in 2024, AGA is pleased to offer regionally curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the distinct challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.
Join us in-person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer travel grants of up to $300 (per workshop) to help offset the costs of attending this program for one selected individual per region. The travel grant is to support travel and registration fees for early-career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.
Ready to thrive? Register today to attend one of our first workshops or stay tuned for an additional workshop coming near you.
This program is supported by Janssen.
Midwest Regional Workshop
Saturday, Feb. 24, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. CT
University of Chicago, Gleacher Center, Chicago, IL
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Feb. 9, 2024 Deadline to register: Feb. 16, 2024
Click here to register.
Western Regional Workshop
Saturday, April 27, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. PT
UCLA Luskin Conference Center, Los Angeles, CA
Meet fellow attendees at our pre-workshop networking event on Friday, Apr. 26 from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: April 12, 2024 Deadline to register: April 19, 2024
Click here to register.
As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat.
Expanded to six workshops in 2024, AGA is pleased to offer regionally curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the distinct challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.
Join us in-person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer travel grants of up to $300 (per workshop) to help offset the costs of attending this program for one selected individual per region. The travel grant is to support travel and registration fees for early-career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.
Ready to thrive? Register today to attend one of our first workshops or stay tuned for an additional workshop coming near you.
This program is supported by Janssen.
Midwest Regional Workshop
Saturday, Feb. 24, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. CT
University of Chicago, Gleacher Center, Chicago, IL
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Feb. 9, 2024 Deadline to register: Feb. 16, 2024
Click here to register.
Western Regional Workshop
Saturday, April 27, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. PT
UCLA Luskin Conference Center, Los Angeles, CA
Meet fellow attendees at our pre-workshop networking event on Friday, Apr. 26 from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: April 12, 2024 Deadline to register: April 19, 2024
Click here to register.
As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat.
Expanded to six workshops in 2024, AGA is pleased to offer regionally curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the distinct challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.
Join us in-person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer travel grants of up to $300 (per workshop) to help offset the costs of attending this program for one selected individual per region. The travel grant is to support travel and registration fees for early-career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.
Ready to thrive? Register today to attend one of our first workshops or stay tuned for an additional workshop coming near you.
This program is supported by Janssen.
Midwest Regional Workshop
Saturday, Feb. 24, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. CT
University of Chicago, Gleacher Center, Chicago, IL
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Feb. 9, 2024 Deadline to register: Feb. 16, 2024
Click here to register.
Western Regional Workshop
Saturday, April 27, 2024
8 a.m.-3 p.m. PT
UCLA Luskin Conference Center, Los Angeles, CA
Meet fellow attendees at our pre-workshop networking event on Friday, Apr. 26 from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
Deadline to apply for a travel grant: April 12, 2024 Deadline to register: April 19, 2024
Click here to register.
AGA Legacy Society Members Sustain GI Research
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments, therapies and discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
“I give back because I have a firsthand knowledge of what it will mean to a young investigator’s career,” said Shrikant Anant, PhD, AGAF, University of Kansas, AGA Legacy Society member. “I was propelled in my career when I received the 2002 AGA Research Scholar Award from the AGA Research Foundation. The funds helped me develop my independent research that led to many NIH grants and, associated with it, career advancement. I still vividly remember the day I received the notice of award and how my whole life changed. Today, I am proud to be a donor myself because I know it is making a difference on yet another young investigator.”
The AGA Legacy Society boasts 161 members. AGA Legacy Society members see the promise the future holds and are committed to furthering research in gastroenterology and hepatology through their generous donations.
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level anytime before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in Washington, D.C. Individuals interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership may contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments, therapies and discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
“I give back because I have a firsthand knowledge of what it will mean to a young investigator’s career,” said Shrikant Anant, PhD, AGAF, University of Kansas, AGA Legacy Society member. “I was propelled in my career when I received the 2002 AGA Research Scholar Award from the AGA Research Foundation. The funds helped me develop my independent research that led to many NIH grants and, associated with it, career advancement. I still vividly remember the day I received the notice of award and how my whole life changed. Today, I am proud to be a donor myself because I know it is making a difference on yet another young investigator.”
The AGA Legacy Society boasts 161 members. AGA Legacy Society members see the promise the future holds and are committed to furthering research in gastroenterology and hepatology through their generous donations.
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level anytime before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in Washington, D.C. Individuals interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership may contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments, therapies and discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
“I give back because I have a firsthand knowledge of what it will mean to a young investigator’s career,” said Shrikant Anant, PhD, AGAF, University of Kansas, AGA Legacy Society member. “I was propelled in my career when I received the 2002 AGA Research Scholar Award from the AGA Research Foundation. The funds helped me develop my independent research that led to many NIH grants and, associated with it, career advancement. I still vividly remember the day I received the notice of award and how my whole life changed. Today, I am proud to be a donor myself because I know it is making a difference on yet another young investigator.”
The AGA Legacy Society boasts 161 members. AGA Legacy Society members see the promise the future holds and are committed to furthering research in gastroenterology and hepatology through their generous donations.
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level anytime before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in Washington, D.C. Individuals interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership may contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.
2024 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit Explores the Clinical Impacts of the Microbiome
Join global experts in-person or online as they gather for the 2024 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit (GMFH) on March 23-24, 2024, in Washington, DC.
This meeting brings together an international and multidisciplinary community of GI clinicians, dietitians, and researchers to discuss personalized approaches to modifying the gut microbiome to improve health and treat disease.
This year’s program will explore:
- Better health through the gut microbiome.
- Big data and the gut microbiome.
- Human-derived to synthetic communities.
- Bringing new microbiome-based products to market.
Early-career faculty and trainees are encouraged to submit abstracts for presentation during the reception. Five $1,000 abstract prizes are available for top-scoring submissions.
Register here.
Join global experts in-person or online as they gather for the 2024 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit (GMFH) on March 23-24, 2024, in Washington, DC.
This meeting brings together an international and multidisciplinary community of GI clinicians, dietitians, and researchers to discuss personalized approaches to modifying the gut microbiome to improve health and treat disease.
This year’s program will explore:
- Better health through the gut microbiome.
- Big data and the gut microbiome.
- Human-derived to synthetic communities.
- Bringing new microbiome-based products to market.
Early-career faculty and trainees are encouraged to submit abstracts for presentation during the reception. Five $1,000 abstract prizes are available for top-scoring submissions.
Register here.
Join global experts in-person or online as they gather for the 2024 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit (GMFH) on March 23-24, 2024, in Washington, DC.
This meeting brings together an international and multidisciplinary community of GI clinicians, dietitians, and researchers to discuss personalized approaches to modifying the gut microbiome to improve health and treat disease.
This year’s program will explore:
- Better health through the gut microbiome.
- Big data and the gut microbiome.
- Human-derived to synthetic communities.
- Bringing new microbiome-based products to market.
Early-career faculty and trainees are encouraged to submit abstracts for presentation during the reception. Five $1,000 abstract prizes are available for top-scoring submissions.
Register here.