Clinical Endocrinology News

The incidence of type 1 diabetes rose at a steady 1.9% per year, and the incidence of type 2 diabetes at a constant rate of 4.9% per year, from 2002 to 2015, according to a review of almost 70,000 children in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, an ongoing, population-based surveillance project of individuals younger than 20 years.

“For both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the rates of increase were generally higher among racial/ethnic minority populations than those among whites,” wrote the investigators, led by Jasmin Divers, PhD, of the division of health services research, department of foundations of medicine, at New York University. “These findings highlight the need for continued surveillance for diabetes among youths to monitor overall and group-specific trends, identify factors driving these trends, and inform health care planning.”

SEARCH identified 14,638 cases of pediatric type 1 diabetes and 3,916 cases of type 2 diabetes from 2002 to 2015. The study draws participants from all 64 counties in Colorado, plus selected Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico under the direction of Colorado; all 46 counties in South Carolina; 8 in Ohio; 5 in Washington; and Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan enrollees in 7 counties.

The investigators found steeper increases in age- and sex-adjusted incidence of type 1 diabetes from 2002 to 2015 among black youth (2.7% per year), Hispanic youth (4%), and Asian and Pacific Islander youth (4.4%), than among their white counterparts (0.7%). Incidence among Asians and Pacific Islanders did not change significantly during 2002-2010, but increased steeply during 2011-2015 (8.5% per year) for unknown reasons.

“In parallel with increased obesity prevalence in U.S. youths, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among adolescents has increased at a higher rate than that of type 1 diabetes, especially among racial-/ethnic-minority youths,” the authors noted.

The number of new cases of type 2 diagnosed in children younger than 10 years were too few to report on (181 total cases during 2002-2015), so the incidence analysis was limited to children who were aged 10-19 years at diagnosis. The steepest annual percentage changes were among Asians and Pacific Islander youth (7.7% per year), followed by Hispanic (6.5%), black (6.0%), and American Indian (3.7%) youth.

“Although the SEARCH population is similar demographically to the U.S. youth population, it is not designed to be nationally representative,” which is one of the limitations of the study, the investigators wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Divers J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:161-5.
 

The incidence of type 1 diabetes rose at a steady 1.9% per year, and the incidence of type 2 diabetes at a constant rate of 4.9% per year, from 2002 to 2015, according to a review of almost 70,000 children in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, an ongoing, population-based surveillance project of individuals younger than 20 years.

“For both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the rates of increase were generally higher among racial/ethnic minority populations than those among whites,” wrote the investigators, led by Jasmin Divers, PhD, of the division of health services research, department of foundations of medicine, at New York University. “These findings highlight the need for continued surveillance for diabetes among youths to monitor overall and group-specific trends, identify factors driving these trends, and inform health care planning.”

SEARCH identified 14,638 cases of pediatric type 1 diabetes and 3,916 cases of type 2 diabetes from 2002 to 2015. The study draws participants from all 64 counties in Colorado, plus selected Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico under the direction of Colorado; all 46 counties in South Carolina; 8 in Ohio; 5 in Washington; and Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan enrollees in 7 counties.

The investigators found steeper increases in age- and sex-adjusted incidence of type 1 diabetes from 2002 to 2015 among black youth (2.7% per year), Hispanic youth (4%), and Asian and Pacific Islander youth (4.4%), than among their white counterparts (0.7%). Incidence among Asians and Pacific Islanders did not change significantly during 2002-2010, but increased steeply during 2011-2015 (8.5% per year) for unknown reasons.

“In parallel with increased obesity prevalence in U.S. youths, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among adolescents has increased at a higher rate than that of type 1 diabetes, especially among racial-/ethnic-minority youths,” the authors noted.

The number of new cases of type 2 diagnosed in children younger than 10 years were too few to report on (181 total cases during 2002-2015), so the incidence analysis was limited to children who were aged 10-19 years at diagnosis. The steepest annual percentage changes were among Asians and Pacific Islander youth (7.7% per year), followed by Hispanic (6.5%), black (6.0%), and American Indian (3.7%) youth.

“Although the SEARCH population is similar demographically to the U.S. youth population, it is not designed to be nationally representative,” which is one of the limitations of the study, the investigators wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Divers J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:161-5.
 

The incidence of type 1 diabetes rose at a steady 1.9% per year, and the incidence of type 2 diabetes at a constant rate of 4.9% per year, from 2002 to 2015, according to a review of almost 70,000 children in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study, an ongoing, population-based surveillance project of individuals younger than 20 years.

“For both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, the rates of increase were generally higher among racial/ethnic minority populations than those among whites,” wrote the investigators, led by Jasmin Divers, PhD, of the division of health services research, department of foundations of medicine, at New York University. “These findings highlight the need for continued surveillance for diabetes among youths to monitor overall and group-specific trends, identify factors driving these trends, and inform health care planning.”

SEARCH identified 14,638 cases of pediatric type 1 diabetes and 3,916 cases of type 2 diabetes from 2002 to 2015. The study draws participants from all 64 counties in Colorado, plus selected Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico under the direction of Colorado; all 46 counties in South Carolina; 8 in Ohio; 5 in Washington; and Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan enrollees in 7 counties.

The investigators found steeper increases in age- and sex-adjusted incidence of type 1 diabetes from 2002 to 2015 among black youth (2.7% per year), Hispanic youth (4%), and Asian and Pacific Islander youth (4.4%), than among their white counterparts (0.7%). Incidence among Asians and Pacific Islanders did not change significantly during 2002-2010, but increased steeply during 2011-2015 (8.5% per year) for unknown reasons.

“In parallel with increased obesity prevalence in U.S. youths, the incidence of type 2 diabetes among adolescents has increased at a higher rate than that of type 1 diabetes, especially among racial-/ethnic-minority youths,” the authors noted.

The number of new cases of type 2 diagnosed in children younger than 10 years were too few to report on (181 total cases during 2002-2015), so the incidence analysis was limited to children who were aged 10-19 years at diagnosis. The steepest annual percentage changes were among Asians and Pacific Islander youth (7.7% per year), followed by Hispanic (6.5%), black (6.0%), and American Indian (3.7%) youth.

“Although the SEARCH population is similar demographically to the U.S. youth population, it is not designed to be nationally representative,” which is one of the limitations of the study, the investigators wrote.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Divers J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:161-5.
 

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.

iStock/Thinkstock

The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.

Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.

The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

aotto@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration asked Eisai to voluntary withdraw the weight-loss drug lorcaserin (Belviq and Belviq XR) on Feb. 13 after a post-marketing trial with more than 12,000 subjects revealed an increased occurrence of cancer.

In a Drug Safety Communication, the agency said “health care professionals should stop prescribing and dispensing lorcaserin to patients. Contact patients currently taking lorcaserin, inform them of the increased occurrence of cancer seen in the clinical trial, and ask them to stop taking the medicine. Discuss alternative weight-loss medicines or strategies with your patients.”

Eisai is complying with the withdrawal request.

The decision is based on the agency’s review of the 5-year trial, which was designed to evaluate cardiac risk with the drug and ended in June 2018. In total, 7.7% of patients randomized to 10 mg lorcaserin twice daily were diagnosed with 520 primary cancers, compared with 7.1% of placebo subjects diagnosed with 470 cancers, over a median follow-up of 3 years and 3 months. There was one additional cancer observed for every 470 patients treated for 1 year.

“There was no apparent difference in the incidence of cancer over the initial months of treatment, but the imbalance increased with longer duration on lorcaserin,” FDA said. Pancreatic, colorectal, and lung cancers were among those diagnosed.

In short, “we believe that the risks of lorcaserin outweigh its benefits based on our completed review of” the data, the agency said. The FDA is not recommending special cancer screenings for patients who have taken lorcaserin.

The action follows an FDA alert in January about a possible elevated cancer risk based on its preliminary analysis of the study.

Patients were also advised Feb. 13 to stop taking the drug and talk to their providers about alternative weight-loss medications and weight-management programs.

They were also told to dispose of the pills at a drug take-back location if available, but if not, to mix them with an “unappealing substance” such as dirt, cat litter, or used coffee grounds; seal them in plastic bag; and put them in the trash.

aotto@mdedge.com

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.


 

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Medtronic is recalling certain MiniMed600 insulin pumps as part of a class I recall, the most serious kind of recall, because of a potentially fatal risk of incorrect dosing, according to a Food and Drug Administration MedWatch release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A class I recall such as this indicates that there is reasonable probability that using a defective pump will cause serious adverse health consequences or death, the agency said in the recall notice. It said the company has received more than 26,000 complaints regarding this problem and is aware of 2,175 injuries and 1 death so far. In all, 322,005 devices have been recalled.

If the pumps in question – Model 630G (distributed September 2016 to October 2019) and 670G (June 2017 to August 2019) – have broken or missing retainer rings, the insulin cartridge can end up loose in the reservoir compartment, which can lead to incorrect dosing and therefore potentially to hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, according to the statement.

Model 630G was approved by the FDA in August 2016, and the 670G in September that same year.

On Nov. 21, 2019, Medtronic advised patients with type 1 diabetes who use the pumps to:

• Examine the retainer ring to see if it is loose, broken, or missing.
• Stop using the pump if the reservoir does not lock correctly or if the retainer ring is loose, damaged, or missing. Patients should contact Medtronic for a replacement pump and follow their doctor’s recommendations and perform manual insulin injections.
• Continue using the pump if the reservoir locks in place correctly.
• Check pump and retainer ring if the pump is dropped by accident, and stop use if it is damaged.
• Check the pump and retainer ring every set change to verify the reservoir is locked correctly.

More information regarding this recall, including how to contact Medtronic Technical Support, can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Medtronic is recalling certain MiniMed600 insulin pumps as part of a class I recall, the most serious kind of recall, because of a potentially fatal risk of incorrect dosing, according to a Food and Drug Administration MedWatch release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A class I recall such as this indicates that there is reasonable probability that using a defective pump will cause serious adverse health consequences or death, the agency said in the recall notice. It said the company has received more than 26,000 complaints regarding this problem and is aware of 2,175 injuries and 1 death so far. In all, 322,005 devices have been recalled.

If the pumps in question – Model 630G (distributed September 2016 to October 2019) and 670G (June 2017 to August 2019) – have broken or missing retainer rings, the insulin cartridge can end up loose in the reservoir compartment, which can lead to incorrect dosing and therefore potentially to hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, according to the statement.

Model 630G was approved by the FDA in August 2016, and the 670G in September that same year.

On Nov. 21, 2019, Medtronic advised patients with type 1 diabetes who use the pumps to:

• Examine the retainer ring to see if it is loose, broken, or missing.
• Stop using the pump if the reservoir does not lock correctly or if the retainer ring is loose, damaged, or missing. Patients should contact Medtronic for a replacement pump and follow their doctor’s recommendations and perform manual insulin injections.
• Continue using the pump if the reservoir locks in place correctly.
• Check pump and retainer ring if the pump is dropped by accident, and stop use if it is damaged.
• Check the pump and retainer ring every set change to verify the reservoir is locked correctly.

More information regarding this recall, including how to contact Medtronic Technical Support, can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Medtronic is recalling certain MiniMed600 insulin pumps as part of a class I recall, the most serious kind of recall, because of a potentially fatal risk of incorrect dosing, according to a Food and Drug Administration MedWatch release.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

A class I recall such as this indicates that there is reasonable probability that using a defective pump will cause serious adverse health consequences or death, the agency said in the recall notice. It said the company has received more than 26,000 complaints regarding this problem and is aware of 2,175 injuries and 1 death so far. In all, 322,005 devices have been recalled.

If the pumps in question – Model 630G (distributed September 2016 to October 2019) and 670G (June 2017 to August 2019) – have broken or missing retainer rings, the insulin cartridge can end up loose in the reservoir compartment, which can lead to incorrect dosing and therefore potentially to hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, according to the statement.

Model 630G was approved by the FDA in August 2016, and the 670G in September that same year.

On Nov. 21, 2019, Medtronic advised patients with type 1 diabetes who use the pumps to:

• Examine the retainer ring to see if it is loose, broken, or missing.
• Stop using the pump if the reservoir does not lock correctly or if the retainer ring is loose, damaged, or missing. Patients should contact Medtronic for a replacement pump and follow their doctor’s recommendations and perform manual insulin injections.
• Continue using the pump if the reservoir locks in place correctly.
• Check pump and retainer ring if the pump is dropped by accident, and stop use if it is damaged.
• Check the pump and retainer ring every set change to verify the reservoir is locked correctly.

More information regarding this recall, including how to contact Medtronic Technical Support, can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.