Clinical Endocrinology News

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The results of two postapproval studies confirm the potential risk of hyperinflation and acute pancreatitis with the Orbera and ReShape liquid-filled intragastric balloon systems used to treat obesity.

The Orbera Intragastric Balloon System is manufactured by Apollo Endosurgery. The ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System was previously manufactured by ReShape Medical but was acquired by Apollo Endosurgery in December 2018.

In the Orbera postapproval study, 6 of 258 patients (2.3%) experienced balloon hyperinflation, the Food and Drug Administration said today in a letter to health care providers. There were no hyperinflation events detected in the ReShape postapproval study.

Acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 of 159 patients (1.3%) in the ReShape study, with no cases of acute pancreatitis reported in the Orbera study.

No balloon hyperinflation or acute pancreatitis events were reported in the studies the companies submitted to the FDA to gain approval, the agency said.

No deaths were reported in the postapproval studies, though the agency notes that the studies were not powered to detect. However, since Orbera and ReShape were approved in 2015, the FDA has learned of 18 deaths worldwide, including 8 patients in the United States (5 with Orbera and 3 with ReShape).

The FDA issued previous letters to health care providers concerning issues with these devices in June 2018, August 2017, and February 2017.

As of Jan. 1, 2019, Apollo Endosurgery stopped selling the ReShape Balloon. The Orbera balloon remains available.

“The FDA wants to ensure healthcare professionals are aware of the rates of these potential complications observed in the post-approval studies so they can discuss the risks and benefits of weight loss treatments with patients and monitor patients during treatment,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device, and Human Factors Office at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“While these devices remain an appropriate treatment option for some patients with obesity, patients should always discuss with their doctors which treatment option is best for them,” said Dr. Fisher.

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

The results of two postapproval studies confirm the potential risk of hyperinflation and acute pancreatitis with the Orbera and ReShape liquid-filled intragastric balloon systems used to treat obesity.

The Orbera Intragastric Balloon System is manufactured by Apollo Endosurgery. The ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System was previously manufactured by ReShape Medical but was acquired by Apollo Endosurgery in December 2018.

In the Orbera postapproval study, 6 of 258 patients (2.3%) experienced balloon hyperinflation, the Food and Drug Administration said today in a letter to health care providers. There were no hyperinflation events detected in the ReShape postapproval study.

Acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 of 159 patients (1.3%) in the ReShape study, with no cases of acute pancreatitis reported in the Orbera study.

No balloon hyperinflation or acute pancreatitis events were reported in the studies the companies submitted to the FDA to gain approval, the agency said.

No deaths were reported in the postapproval studies, though the agency notes that the studies were not powered to detect. However, since Orbera and ReShape were approved in 2015, the FDA has learned of 18 deaths worldwide, including 8 patients in the United States (5 with Orbera and 3 with ReShape).

The FDA issued previous letters to health care providers concerning issues with these devices in June 2018, August 2017, and February 2017.

As of Jan. 1, 2019, Apollo Endosurgery stopped selling the ReShape Balloon. The Orbera balloon remains available.

“The FDA wants to ensure healthcare professionals are aware of the rates of these potential complications observed in the post-approval studies so they can discuss the risks and benefits of weight loss treatments with patients and monitor patients during treatment,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device, and Human Factors Office at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“While these devices remain an appropriate treatment option for some patients with obesity, patients should always discuss with their doctors which treatment option is best for them,” said Dr. Fisher.

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

The results of two postapproval studies confirm the potential risk of hyperinflation and acute pancreatitis with the Orbera and ReShape liquid-filled intragastric balloon systems used to treat obesity.

The Orbera Intragastric Balloon System is manufactured by Apollo Endosurgery. The ReShape Integrated Dual Balloon System was previously manufactured by ReShape Medical but was acquired by Apollo Endosurgery in December 2018.

In the Orbera postapproval study, 6 of 258 patients (2.3%) experienced balloon hyperinflation, the Food and Drug Administration said today in a letter to health care providers. There were no hyperinflation events detected in the ReShape postapproval study.

Acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 of 159 patients (1.3%) in the ReShape study, with no cases of acute pancreatitis reported in the Orbera study.

No balloon hyperinflation or acute pancreatitis events were reported in the studies the companies submitted to the FDA to gain approval, the agency said.

No deaths were reported in the postapproval studies, though the agency notes that the studies were not powered to detect. However, since Orbera and ReShape were approved in 2015, the FDA has learned of 18 deaths worldwide, including 8 patients in the United States (5 with Orbera and 3 with ReShape).

The FDA issued previous letters to health care providers concerning issues with these devices in June 2018, August 2017, and February 2017.

As of Jan. 1, 2019, Apollo Endosurgery stopped selling the ReShape Balloon. The Orbera balloon remains available.

“The FDA wants to ensure healthcare professionals are aware of the rates of these potential complications observed in the post-approval studies so they can discuss the risks and benefits of weight loss treatments with patients and monitor patients during treatment,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device, and Human Factors Office at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“While these devices remain an appropriate treatment option for some patients with obesity, patients should always discuss with their doctors which treatment option is best for them,” said Dr. Fisher.

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

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.

When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.

According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.

A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.

“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.

The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.

“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”

The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”

Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.

In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.

Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.

“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
 

A ‘sentinel event’

He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.

The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.

A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.

“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.

Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.

When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.

According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.

A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.

“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.

The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.

“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”

The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”

Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.

In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.

Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.

“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
 

A ‘sentinel event’

He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.

The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.

A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.

“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.

Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of stark racial disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality, the pandemic is being called a “sentinel” and “bellwether” event that should push the United States to finally come to grips with disparities in health care.

When it comes to COVID-19, the pattern is “irrefutable”: Blacks in the United States are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than whites, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, wrote in a viewpoint article published online April 15 in JAMA.

According to one recent survey, he noted, the infection rate is threefold higher and the death rate is sixfold higher in predominantly black counties in the United States relative to predominantly white counties.

A sixfold increase in the rate of death for blacks due to a now ubiquitous virus should be deemed “unconscionable” and a moment of “ethical reckoning,” Dr. Yancy wrote.

“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.

The COVID-19 pandemic may be the “bellwether” event that the United States has needed to fully address disparities in health care, Dr. Yancy said.

“Public health is complicated and social reengineering is complex, but change of this magnitude does not happen without a new resolve,” he concluded. “The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event. Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the U.S., there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain.”

The question is, he asks, will the nation finally “think differently, and, as has been done in response to other major diseases, declare that a civil society will no longer accept disproportionate suffering?”

Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, Tulane University, New Orleans, doesn’t think so.

In a related editorial published online April 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, he points out that the 1985 Heckler Report, from the Department of Health and Human Services, documented higher racial/ethnic mortality rates and the need to correct them. This was followed in 2002 by a report from the Institute of Medicine called Unequal Treatment that also underscored health disparities.

Despite some progress, the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating racial/ethnic disparities has not been realized, Dr. Ferdinand said. “I think baked into the consciousness of the American psyche is that there are some people who have and some who have not,” he said in an interview.

“To some extent, some societies at some point become immune. We would not like to think that America, with its sense of egalitarianism, would get to that point, but maybe we have,” said Dr. Ferdinand.
 

A ‘sentinel event’

He points out that black people are not genetically or biologically predisposed to COVID-19 but are socially prone to coronavirus exposure and are more likely to have comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, that fuel complications.

The “tragic” higher COVID-19 mortality among African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities confirms “inadequate” efforts on the part of society to eliminate disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is a “sentinel event,” Dr. Ferdinand wrote.

A sentinel event, as defined by the Joint Commission, is an unexpected occurrence that leads to death or serious physical or psychological injury or the risk thereof, he explained.

“Conventionally identified sentinel events, such as unintended retention of foreign objects and fall-related events, are used to evaluate quality in hospital care. Similarly, disparate [African American] COVID-19 mortality reflects long-standing, unacceptable U.S. racial/ethnic and socioeconomic CVD inequities and unmasks system failures and unacceptable care to be caught and mitigated,” Dr. Ferdinand concluded.

Dr. Yancy and Dr. Ferdinand have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

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

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

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

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

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

A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.

Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.

He said the intention is to use online voting and discussions among physicians across specialties to advocate for more and better legislation on pressing issues for their profession and, as noted on the group’s website, “protect the physician-patient relationship.”

Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.

There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.

Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.

Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.

He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report

“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”

On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.

In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.

“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.

What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.

United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.

“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.

He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.

“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”

No compensation

Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.

In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.

Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.

Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.

Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”

Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.

In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.

“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said

Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.

In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.

Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.

Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.

But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.

“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”

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

A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.

Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.

He said the intention is to use online voting and discussions among physicians across specialties to advocate for more and better legislation on pressing issues for their profession and, as noted on the group’s website, “protect the physician-patient relationship.”

Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.

There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.

Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.

Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.

He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report

“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”

On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.

In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.

“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.

What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.

United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.

“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.

He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.

“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”

No compensation

Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.

In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.

Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.

Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.

Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”

Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.

In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.

“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said

Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.

In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.

Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.

Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.

But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.

“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”

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

A new advocacy organization is launching on April 28 to give “every physician” a voice in decisions that affect their professional lives. But this group doesn’t intend to use the top-down approach to decision making seen in many medical societies.

Paul Teirstein, MD, chief of cardiology for Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and founder of the new organization United Physicians, said in an interviewit is a nonprofit group that will operate through online participation.

He said the intention is to use online voting and discussions among physicians across specialties to advocate for more and better legislation on pressing issues for their profession and, as noted on the group’s website, “protect the physician-patient relationship.”

Projects would need the support of a two-thirds majority of United Physicians’ members to proceed with any proposals. Meetings will be held publicly online, Dr. Teirstein explained.

There is a need for a broad-based organization that will respond to the voice of practicing physicians rather than dictate legislative priorities from management ranks, he said.

Dr. Teirstein said he learned how challenging it is to bring physicians together on issues in 2014 in his battles against changes in maintenance of certification rules. The result of his efforts was the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), set up to provide a means of certification different from the one offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Teirstein has argued that the approach of ABIM unfairly burdened physicians with a stepped-up schedule of testing and relied on an outdated approach to the practice of medicine.

Physicians busy with their practices feel they lack a unified voice in contesting the growing administrative burden and unproductive federal and state policies, Dr. Teirstein said.

He cited the limited enrollment in the largest physician groups as evidence of how disenfranchised many clinicians feel. There are about 1 million professional active physicians in the United States, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet, even the largest physician group, the American Medical Association, has about 250,000 members, according to its 2018 annual report

“Clearly, most physicians believe they have little voice when it comes to health care decisions,” Dr. Teirstein said. “Our physician associations are governed from the top down. The leaders set the agenda. There may be delegates, but does leadership really listen to the delegates? Do the delegates really listen to the physician community?”

On its website, AMA describes itself as “physicians’ powerful ally in patient care” that works with more than 190 state and specialty medical societies. In recent months, James L. Madara, MD, the group’s chief executive officer, has urged governors to remove obstacles for physicians who want to fill workforce gaps in COVID-19 hot spots, among other actions.

In its annual report, the AMA, which declined to comment for this article, said its membership rose by 3.4% in 2018, double the growth rate of the previous year, thanks to a membership drive.

“The campaign celebrates the powerful work of our physician members and showcases how their individual efforts – along with the AMA – are moving medicine forward,” wrote Dr. Madara and other organization leaders in the report.

What Dr. Teirstein proposes is an inversion of the structure used by other medical societies, in which he says leaders and delegates dictate priorities.

United Physicians will use meetings and votes held by members online to decide which projects to pursue. Fees would be kept nominal, likely about $10 a year, depending on the number of members. Fees would be subject to change on the basis of expenses. The AMA has a sliding fee schedule that tops out with annual dues for physicians in regular practice of $420.

“There are no delegates, no representatives, and no board of directors. We want every physician to join and every physician to vote on every issue,” Dr. Teirstein said.

He stressed that he sees United Physicians as being complementary to the AMA.

“We do not compete with other organizations. Ideally, other organizations will use the platform,” Dr. Teirstein said. “If the AMA is considering a new policy, it can use the United Physicians platform to measure physician support. For example, through online discussions, petitions, and voting, it might learn a proposed policy needs a few tweaks to be accepted by most physicians.”

No compensation

Dr. Teirstein is among physician leaders who in recent years have sought to rally their colleagues to fight back against growing administrative burdens.

In a 2015 article in JAMA that was written with Medscape’s editor in chief, Eric Topol, MD, Dr. Teirstein criticized the ABIM’s drive to have physicians complete tests every 2 years and participate in continuous certification instead of recertifying once a decade, as had been the practice.

Dr. Teirstein formed the NBPAS as an alternative path for certification, with Dr. Topol serving on the board for that organization. Dr. Topol also will serve as a member of the advisory board for Teirstein’s United Physicians.

Dr. Topol wrote an article that appeared in the New Yorker last August that argued for physicians to move beyond the confines of medical societies and seek a path for broad-based activism. He said he intended to challenge medical societies, which, for all the good they do, can sometimes lose focus on that core relationship in favor of the bottom line.

Dr. Topol said in an interview that his colleague’s new project is a “good idea for a democratized platform at a time when physician solidarity is needed more than ever.”

Dr. Teirstein plans to run United Physicians on a volunteer basis. This builds on the approach he has used for NBPAS. He and the directors of the NBPAS will receive no compensation, he said, as was confirmed by the NBPAS.

In contrast, Dr. Madara made about $2.5 million in total compensation for 2018, according to the organization’s Internal Revenue Service filing. Physicians who served as trustees and officials for the AMA that year received annual compensation that ranged from around $60,000 to $291,980, depending on their duties.

“Having volunteer leadership mitigates conflict of interest. It also ensures leadership has a ‘day job’ that keeps them in touch with issues impacting practicing physicians,” Dr. Teirstein said

Start-up costs for United Physicians will be supported by NBPAS, but it will function as a completely independent organization, he added.

In introducing the group, Dr. Teirstein outlined suggestions for proposals it might pursue. These include making hospitals secure adequate supplies of personal protective equipment ahead of health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

His outline also includes suggestions for issues that likely will persist beyond the response to the pandemic.

Dr. Teirstein proposed a project for persuading insurance companies to provide online calendar appointments for peer-to-peer patient preauthorization. Failure of the insurer’s representative to attend would trigger approval of authorization under this proposal. He also suggested a lobbying effort for specific reimbursement for peer-to-peer, patient preauthorization phone calls.

Dr. Teirstein said he hopes most of the proposals will come from physicians who join United Physicians. Still, it is unclear whether United Physicians will succeed. An initial challenge could be in sorting through a barrage of competing ideas submitted to United Physicians.

But Dr. Teirstein appears hopeful about the changes for this experiment in online advocacy. He intends for United Physicians to be a pathway for clinicians to translate their complaints about policies into calls for action, with only a short investment of their time.

“Most of us have wonderful, engrossing jobs. It’s hard to beat helping a patient, and most of us get to do it every day,” Dr. .Teirstein said. “Will we take the 30 seconds required to sign up and become a United Physicians member? Will we spend a little time each week reviewing the issues and voting? I think it’s an experiment worth watching.”

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.

CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”

The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.

CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.

CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.

CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”

The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.

CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.

CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will suspend its Medicare advance payment program for clinicians and is reevaluating how much to pay to hospitals going forward through particular COVID-19 relief initiatives. CMS announced the changes on April 26. Physicians and others who use the accelerated and advance Medicare payments program repay these advances, and they are typically given 1 year or less to repay the funding.

CMS said in a news release it will not accept new applications for the advanced Medicare payment, and it will be reevaluating all pending and new applications “in light of historical direct payments made available through the Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Provider Relief Fund.”

The advance Medicare payment program predates COVID-19, although it previously was used on a much smaller scale. In the past 5 years, CMS approved about 100 total requests for advanced Medicare payment, with most being tied to natural disasters such as hurricanes.

CMS said it has approved, since March, more than 21,000 applications for advanced Medicare payment, totaling $59.6 billion, for hospitals and other organizations that bill its Part A program. In addition, CMS approved almost 24,000 applications for its Part B program, advancing $40.4 billion for physicians, other clinicians, and medical equipment suppliers.

CMS noted that Congress also has provided $175 billion in aid for the medical community that clinicians and medical organizations would not need to repay. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March included $100 billion, and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted March 24, includes another $75 billion.

A version of this article was originally published on Medscape.com.