User login
Feds launch COVID-19 worker vaccine mandates
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA posts new websites on accelerated approvals for cancer drugs
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves avacopan for rare ANCA autoimmune disease
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Zero benefit of aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease, expert panel rules
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contentious Alzheimer’s drug likely to get national coverage plan, CMS says
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare proposes direct payments to PAs, telehealth expansion
It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.
Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.
In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.
In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.
In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.
“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?
CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.
Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.
“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.
Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.
Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.
In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.
In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.
In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.
“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?
CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.
Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.
“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.
Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It also intends to change the approach to payments for office visits and for coaching programs for diabetes prevention.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently posted its proposed 2022 physician fee schedule. Running to more than 1,700 pages, the draft rule contains myriad other changes in how the giant federal health program pays for medical care, including revisions to its approach to evaluation and management (E/M) services, which represent many office visits. In addition, Medicare is seeking to increase participation in a program intended to prevent people from developing diabetes.
Physician groups posted quick complaints about a proposed 3.75% reduction to the conversion factor because of budget neutrality requirements. The cut reinstates a reduction Congress prevented in late 2020.
In a statement, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, called the draft rule a “mixed bag for physician practices.” Mr. Gilberg said the MGMA will seek congressional intervention to avert the cut for services in 2022.
In keeping with a provision Congress included in a massive spending bill enacted in December, Medicare will let PAs directly bill, as nurse practitioners already can. In a press release, CMS on July 13 described this as a move likely to expand access to care and reduce administrative burden. In 2020, the American Academy of PAs praised the inclusion in the spending bill of the provision allowing its members to directly bill Medicare.
In the draft rule, CMS also intends to remove certain geographic restrictions regarding use of telehealth services for diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of mental health disorders. CMS also is proposing to allow payment to eligible clinicians for certain mental health and behavioral health services to patients via audio-only telephone calls. These services would include counseling and therapy services provided through opioid treatment programs.
“These changes would be particularly helpful for those in areas with poor broadband infrastructure and among people with Medicare who are not capable of, or do not consent to the use of, devices that permit a two-way, audio/video interaction for their health care visits,” CMS said in a statement.
Slimmer Medicare enrollees, bigger payments for coaches?
CMS is seeking to draw more participants to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP). This program includes organizations that provide structured, coach-led sessions in community and health care settings to help people lose weight and exercise more. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, CMS waived an enrollment fee for new suppliers of services in MDPP. CMS now is proposing to waive this fee for all organizations that submit an application to enroll in Medicare as an MDPP supplier on or after Jan. 1, 2022.
Another proposed change in MDPP services is a restructuring of payments so that organizations involved in coaching would receive larger payments when their participants reach milestones for attendance and for becoming slimmer.
“We propose to increase performance payments for MDPP beneficiary achievement of the 5% weight-loss goal, as well as continued attendance during each core maintenance interval,” CMS said in a statement.
Medicare remains engaged in a review of its payments for E/M services. In the draft rule, CMS is proposing a number of refinements to current policies for split, or shared, E/M visits, critical care services, and services furnished by teaching physicians involving residents. The intention of these changes is to “better reflect the current practice of medicine, the evolving role of nonphysician practitioners as members of the medical team, and to clarify conditions of payment that must be met to bill Medicare for these services,” CMS said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NIAID advances universal flu vaccine candidate into phase 1 trial
Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.
For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.
“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.
The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.
The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?
Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.
But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.
The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.
“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”
The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.
In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.
SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.
“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.
For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.
“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.
The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.
The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?
Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.
But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.
The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.
“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”
The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.
In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.
SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.
“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.
For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.
“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.
The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.
The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?
Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.
But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.
The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.
“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”
The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.
In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.
SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.
“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More and more doctors abandoning private practice
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
according to a new report.
These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.
The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.
This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.
Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.
The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.
There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.
The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.
The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.
“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.
In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
Challenging environment
It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”
Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.
Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.
“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.
Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.
On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.
“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “
UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
Attractions of larger groups
Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.
The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.
Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.
AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.
Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model
“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”
For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.
Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.
In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.
The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.
In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.
“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.
For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.
Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.
“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health
Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”
AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
‘Dramatic restructuring’
The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”
The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.
The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”
The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
Private equity ‘roll-ups’
On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.
In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)
Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.
“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Bill seeks to streamline prior authorization in Medicare Advantage plans
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.
There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.
There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.
“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
Strong support among health care groups
There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.
The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.
“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.
Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.
Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.
“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.
In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”
“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”
The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
“Rationing care by hassling”
Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.
Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.
“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”
The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.
In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.
“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”
During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.
Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.
In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.
“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”
Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.
“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.
Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.
“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC recommends use of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in 12- to 15-year-olds
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.
Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.
Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.
The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.
Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.
“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
Vaccine “safe and effective”
Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”
The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.
“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.
Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.
Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.
The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.
Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.
“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
Vaccine “safe and effective”
Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”
The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.
“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.
Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.
Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.
The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.
Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.
“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
Vaccine “safe and effective”
Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.
“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”
The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.
“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.