User login
Full-dose anticoagulation reduces need for life support in COVID-19
Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.
The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.
Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.
In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.
Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.
Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.
This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”
The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.
Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.
With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.
The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.
“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.
“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”
The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.
“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.
In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.
The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.
The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.
Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.
In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.
Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.
Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.
This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”
The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.
Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.
With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.
The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.
“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.
“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”
The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.
“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.
In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.
The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.
“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.
The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.
Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.
In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.
Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.
Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.
This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”
The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.
Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.
With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.
The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.
“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.
“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”
The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.
“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.
In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.
The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 drives physician burnout for some specialties
Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.
Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.
Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
Women hit particularly hard
Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.
“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”
Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.
For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.
More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.
“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”
Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
One percent have attempted suicide
In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.
By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).
“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”
Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.
Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.
Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
Administrative tasks fuel burnout
The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.
Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.
An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”
A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.
One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
Exercise tops coping list
Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.
Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.
The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).
Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.
Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.
“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”
A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.
Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.
Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
Women hit particularly hard
Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.
“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”
Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.
For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.
More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.
“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”
Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
One percent have attempted suicide
In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.
By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).
“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”
Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.
Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.
Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
Administrative tasks fuel burnout
The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.
Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.
An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”
A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.
One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
Exercise tops coping list
Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.
Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.
The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).
Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.
Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.
“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”
A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.
Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.
Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
Women hit particularly hard
Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.
“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”
Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.
For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.
More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.
“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”
Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
One percent have attempted suicide
In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.
By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).
“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”
Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.
Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.
Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
Administrative tasks fuel burnout
The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.
Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.
An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”
A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.
One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
Exercise tops coping list
Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.
Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.
The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).
Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.
Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.
“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”
A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What we know and don’t know about virus variants and vaccines
About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.
One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.
The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.
The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.
It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”
On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”
This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
Staying one step ahead
When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”
Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.
“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.
On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.
“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”
“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.
Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
President Biden’s backing of science
A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.
“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.
“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.
Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”
“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.
“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.
Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”
“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”
This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.
One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.
The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.
The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.
It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”
On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”
This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
Staying one step ahead
When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”
Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.
“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.
On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.
“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”
“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.
Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
President Biden’s backing of science
A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.
“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.
“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.
Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”
“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.
“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.
Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”
“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”
This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.
One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.
The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.
The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.
It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”
On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”
This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
Staying one step ahead
When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”
Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.
“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.
On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.
“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”
“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.
Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
President Biden’s backing of science
A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.
“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.
“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.
Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”
“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.
“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.
Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”
“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”
This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coronasomnia: Pervasive sleeplessness, self-medicating raise concerns of sleep experts
Among the many losses suffered by millions worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, the loss of sleep may be the most widespread, with potentially long-lasting, negative consequences on physical, mental, and emotional health, sleep researchers have found.
Results from multiple studies and surveys conducted during the pandemic show that a majority of subjects report clinically meaningful changes in sleep quality, sleep patterns, and sleep disturbances.
For example, a cross-sectional international survey conducted from late March through late April 2020 found that among more than 3,000 responders from 49 countries, 58% reported dissatisfaction with their sleep, and 40% reported a decrease in sleep quality during the pandemic, compared with pre-COVID-19 sleep, according to Uri Mandelkorn of the Natural Sleep Clinic in Jerusalem, and colleagues.
“In particular, this research raises the need to screen for worsening sleep patterns and use of sleeping aids in the more susceptible populations identified in this study, namely, women and people with insecure livelihoods or those subjected to strict quarantine. Health care providers should pay special attention to physical and psychological problems that this surge in sleep disturbances may cause,” they wrote. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Sleeping, more or less
A coauthor of that study, David Gozal, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep medicine specialist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, said that the pandemic has had paradoxical effects on sleeps patterns for many.
“At the beginning, with the initial phases of lockdown for COVID, for most of the people whose jobs were not affected and who did not lose their jobs, [for whom] there was not the anxiety of being jobless and financially strapped, but who now were staying at home, there was actually a benefit. People started reporting getting more sleep and, more importantly, more vivid dreams and things of that nature,” he said in an interview.
“But as the lockdown progressed, we saw progressively and increasingly more people having difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, using more medicines such as hypnotics to induce sleep, and we saw a 20% increase in the overall consumption of sleeping pills,” he said.
Similar results were seen in a cross-sectional survey of 843 adults in the United Kingdom, which showed that nearly 70% of participants reported a change in sleep patterns, only 45% reported having refreshing sleep, and 46% reported being sleepier during lockdown than before. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that the pandemic affected their mental health, and one-fourth reported increased alcohol consumption during lockdown. Those with suspected COVID-19 infections reported having more nightmares and abnormal sleep rhythms.
It is possible that the effects of COVID-19 infection on sleep may linger long after the infection itself has resolved, results of a cohort study from China suggest. As reported in The Lancet, among 1,655 patients discharged from the Jin Yin-tan hospital in Wuhan, 26% reported sleep disturbances 6 months after acute COVID-19 infection.
Self-medicating
Among 5,525 Canadians surveyed from April 3 through June 24, 2020, a large proportion reported the use of pharmacologic sleeps aids, said Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of respirology at the University of Ottawa.
“At the time of the survey completion, 27% of participants reported taking sleeping aids (prescribed or [over] the counter); across the entire sample, 8% of respondents reported an increase in the frequency of sleeping medication use during the outbreak compared to before the outbreak,” she said in an interview.
Many people resort to self-medicating with over-the-counter preparations such as melatonin and pain-relief nighttime formulations containing diphenhydramine (Benadryl), a first-generation antihistamine with sedative properties, noted Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, a critical care, pulmonary, and sleep medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and current president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
“When people are self-medicating for what they think is difficulty sleeping, the concern is that even if a diagnosis of insomnia has been established, there could be another, ongoing sleep disorder that may be undiagnosed, which might be causing the problem with insomnia,” he said in an interview.
“For example, obstructive sleep apnea might be causing people to wake up in the night or even contribute to difficulty falling asleep in the first place. So medicating for something without a known diagnosis may leave an underlying sleep disorder untreated, which won’t help the patient in either the short or the long term,” Dr. Ramar said.
Causes for concern
“For those people who have COVID, we have seen quite a few sleep issues develop. Those were not reported in the actual study, but in the clinic and subsequent studies published from other places,” Dr. Gozal said.
“People who suffered from COVID, and even people who supposedly did very well and were virtually asymptomatic or maybe had only a headache or fever but did not need to go to the hospital, many of those people reported either excessive sleepiness for a long period of time, and would sleep 2 or 3 hours more per night. Or the opposite was reported: There were those that after recovering reported that they couldn’t sleep – they were sleeping 4 or 5 hours when they normally sleep 7 or 8,” he said.
It’s also unclear from current evidence whether the reported uptick in sleep problems is related to stress or, in patients who have had COVID-19 infections, to physiologic causes.
Dr. Gozal said that insomnia in the time of COVID-19 could be attributed to a number of factors such as less daily exposure to natural light from people sheltering indoors, stress related to financial or health worries, depression, or other psychological factors.
It’s also, possible, however, that COVID-19-related physiological changes could contribute to sleep disorders, he said, pointing to a recent study in the Journal of Experimental Medicine showing that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can bind to neurons and cause metabolic changes in both infected and neighboring cells.
“My guess is that some of it is related more to behavioral impacts – people develop depression, changes in mood, anxiety, and so on, and all of these can translate into difficulties with sleep,” he said.
“It could be that in some instances – not very commonly – the virus will affect areas that control sleep in our brain, and that therefore we may see too much or too little sleep, and how to differentiate between all of these is the area that clearly needs to be explored, particularly in light of the finding that the virus can bind to brain cells and can induce substantial issues in the brain cells.”
Compromised immunity
It has been well documented that in addition to being, as Shakespeare called it, “the balm of hurt minds,” sleep has an important role in supporting the immune system.
“Sleep and immunity go together,” Dr. Ramar said. “When people have adequate sleep, their immune system is boosted. We know that there are good data from hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccinations, and recently on flu vaccination, that if people get sufficient duration of sleep before and after they receive the shot, their likelihood of building an immune response to that particular vaccination tends to go up.”
It’s reasonable to assume that the same would hold true for COVID-19 vaccinations, but this has yet to be shown, he added.
“We do know from the previous studies that persistent sleep problems can make people more susceptible to infection or impair recovery; not yet, I believe, from the COVID-19 infection perspective,” Dr. Kendzerska said. “In our study, we did find that, among other factors, having a chronic illness was associated with new sleep difficulties during the pandemic. We did not look separately if sleep difficulties were associated with the COVID-19 infection or symptoms, but this is a great question to address with longitudinal data we have.”
What to do?
All three sleep experts contacted for this article agreed that for patients with insomnia, mitigating stress through relaxation techniques or cognitive behavioral therapy is more beneficial than medication.
“Medications, even over-the-counter medications, all have side effects, and if one is taking a medication that has stimulants in place, such as pseudoephedrine in antihistamine combinations, that can potentially contribute to or exacerbate any underlying sleep disorders,” Dr. Ramar said.
Dr. Kendzerska recommended reserving medications such as melatonin, a chronobiotic therapy, for patients with sleep disorders related to circadian rhythm problems, including a sleep phase delay. Supplemental, short-term treatment with hypnotic agents such as zolpidem (Ambien), eszopiclone (Lunesta), or zaleplon (Sonata) should be used only as a last resort, she said.
Sleep medicine specialists recommend good sleep hygiene as the best means of obtaining restful sleep, including regular bed and wake times, limited exposure to stressful news (including COVID-19 stories), reduced consumption of alcohol and stimulants such as coffee or caffeine drinks, avoiding use of electronic devices in bed or near bedtime, and healthy lifestyle, including diet and exercise.
They also frown on self-medication with over-the-counter aids, because these products may not be addressing the underlying issue, as noted before.
“It is also foreseeable that there may be an increase in individuals who may require professional guidance to taper off from sleeping medications started or increased during the pandemic. While some of these sleep problems may be transient, it should be a high priority to ensure they do not evolve into chronic sleep disorders,” Dr. Kendzerska and colleagues wrote.
Research avenues
If there’s anything that causes specialists to lose sleep, it’s the lack of data or evidence to guide clinical care and research. Dr. Gozal emphasized that little is still known about the potential central nervous system effects of COVID-19, and said that should be an important focus for research into the still novel coronavirus.
“What happens post COVID and how might that affect subsequent recovery is a great question, and I don’t think we have good data there,” Dr. Ramar said. “What we do know is that patients develop the symptoms of fatigue, disrupted sleep, even ongoing fever, and unfortunately, this may persist for a long period of time even among patients who have otherwise recovered from COVID-19. We know that leaving that untreated from a sleep disorder perspective can exacerbate their daytime symptoms, and that’s where I would strongly recommend that they seek help with a sleep provider or if there are symptoms other than insomnia at least with a primary care provider.”
Among the many losses suffered by millions worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, the loss of sleep may be the most widespread, with potentially long-lasting, negative consequences on physical, mental, and emotional health, sleep researchers have found.
Results from multiple studies and surveys conducted during the pandemic show that a majority of subjects report clinically meaningful changes in sleep quality, sleep patterns, and sleep disturbances.
For example, a cross-sectional international survey conducted from late March through late April 2020 found that among more than 3,000 responders from 49 countries, 58% reported dissatisfaction with their sleep, and 40% reported a decrease in sleep quality during the pandemic, compared with pre-COVID-19 sleep, according to Uri Mandelkorn of the Natural Sleep Clinic in Jerusalem, and colleagues.
“In particular, this research raises the need to screen for worsening sleep patterns and use of sleeping aids in the more susceptible populations identified in this study, namely, women and people with insecure livelihoods or those subjected to strict quarantine. Health care providers should pay special attention to physical and psychological problems that this surge in sleep disturbances may cause,” they wrote. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Sleeping, more or less
A coauthor of that study, David Gozal, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep medicine specialist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, said that the pandemic has had paradoxical effects on sleeps patterns for many.
“At the beginning, with the initial phases of lockdown for COVID, for most of the people whose jobs were not affected and who did not lose their jobs, [for whom] there was not the anxiety of being jobless and financially strapped, but who now were staying at home, there was actually a benefit. People started reporting getting more sleep and, more importantly, more vivid dreams and things of that nature,” he said in an interview.
“But as the lockdown progressed, we saw progressively and increasingly more people having difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, using more medicines such as hypnotics to induce sleep, and we saw a 20% increase in the overall consumption of sleeping pills,” he said.
Similar results were seen in a cross-sectional survey of 843 adults in the United Kingdom, which showed that nearly 70% of participants reported a change in sleep patterns, only 45% reported having refreshing sleep, and 46% reported being sleepier during lockdown than before. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that the pandemic affected their mental health, and one-fourth reported increased alcohol consumption during lockdown. Those with suspected COVID-19 infections reported having more nightmares and abnormal sleep rhythms.
It is possible that the effects of COVID-19 infection on sleep may linger long after the infection itself has resolved, results of a cohort study from China suggest. As reported in The Lancet, among 1,655 patients discharged from the Jin Yin-tan hospital in Wuhan, 26% reported sleep disturbances 6 months after acute COVID-19 infection.
Self-medicating
Among 5,525 Canadians surveyed from April 3 through June 24, 2020, a large proportion reported the use of pharmacologic sleeps aids, said Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of respirology at the University of Ottawa.
“At the time of the survey completion, 27% of participants reported taking sleeping aids (prescribed or [over] the counter); across the entire sample, 8% of respondents reported an increase in the frequency of sleeping medication use during the outbreak compared to before the outbreak,” she said in an interview.
Many people resort to self-medicating with over-the-counter preparations such as melatonin and pain-relief nighttime formulations containing diphenhydramine (Benadryl), a first-generation antihistamine with sedative properties, noted Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, a critical care, pulmonary, and sleep medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and current president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
“When people are self-medicating for what they think is difficulty sleeping, the concern is that even if a diagnosis of insomnia has been established, there could be another, ongoing sleep disorder that may be undiagnosed, which might be causing the problem with insomnia,” he said in an interview.
“For example, obstructive sleep apnea might be causing people to wake up in the night or even contribute to difficulty falling asleep in the first place. So medicating for something without a known diagnosis may leave an underlying sleep disorder untreated, which won’t help the patient in either the short or the long term,” Dr. Ramar said.
Causes for concern
“For those people who have COVID, we have seen quite a few sleep issues develop. Those were not reported in the actual study, but in the clinic and subsequent studies published from other places,” Dr. Gozal said.
“People who suffered from COVID, and even people who supposedly did very well and were virtually asymptomatic or maybe had only a headache or fever but did not need to go to the hospital, many of those people reported either excessive sleepiness for a long period of time, and would sleep 2 or 3 hours more per night. Or the opposite was reported: There were those that after recovering reported that they couldn’t sleep – they were sleeping 4 or 5 hours when they normally sleep 7 or 8,” he said.
It’s also unclear from current evidence whether the reported uptick in sleep problems is related to stress or, in patients who have had COVID-19 infections, to physiologic causes.
Dr. Gozal said that insomnia in the time of COVID-19 could be attributed to a number of factors such as less daily exposure to natural light from people sheltering indoors, stress related to financial or health worries, depression, or other psychological factors.
It’s also, possible, however, that COVID-19-related physiological changes could contribute to sleep disorders, he said, pointing to a recent study in the Journal of Experimental Medicine showing that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can bind to neurons and cause metabolic changes in both infected and neighboring cells.
“My guess is that some of it is related more to behavioral impacts – people develop depression, changes in mood, anxiety, and so on, and all of these can translate into difficulties with sleep,” he said.
“It could be that in some instances – not very commonly – the virus will affect areas that control sleep in our brain, and that therefore we may see too much or too little sleep, and how to differentiate between all of these is the area that clearly needs to be explored, particularly in light of the finding that the virus can bind to brain cells and can induce substantial issues in the brain cells.”
Compromised immunity
It has been well documented that in addition to being, as Shakespeare called it, “the balm of hurt minds,” sleep has an important role in supporting the immune system.
“Sleep and immunity go together,” Dr. Ramar said. “When people have adequate sleep, their immune system is boosted. We know that there are good data from hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccinations, and recently on flu vaccination, that if people get sufficient duration of sleep before and after they receive the shot, their likelihood of building an immune response to that particular vaccination tends to go up.”
It’s reasonable to assume that the same would hold true for COVID-19 vaccinations, but this has yet to be shown, he added.
“We do know from the previous studies that persistent sleep problems can make people more susceptible to infection or impair recovery; not yet, I believe, from the COVID-19 infection perspective,” Dr. Kendzerska said. “In our study, we did find that, among other factors, having a chronic illness was associated with new sleep difficulties during the pandemic. We did not look separately if sleep difficulties were associated with the COVID-19 infection or symptoms, but this is a great question to address with longitudinal data we have.”
What to do?
All three sleep experts contacted for this article agreed that for patients with insomnia, mitigating stress through relaxation techniques or cognitive behavioral therapy is more beneficial than medication.
“Medications, even over-the-counter medications, all have side effects, and if one is taking a medication that has stimulants in place, such as pseudoephedrine in antihistamine combinations, that can potentially contribute to or exacerbate any underlying sleep disorders,” Dr. Ramar said.
Dr. Kendzerska recommended reserving medications such as melatonin, a chronobiotic therapy, for patients with sleep disorders related to circadian rhythm problems, including a sleep phase delay. Supplemental, short-term treatment with hypnotic agents such as zolpidem (Ambien), eszopiclone (Lunesta), or zaleplon (Sonata) should be used only as a last resort, she said.
Sleep medicine specialists recommend good sleep hygiene as the best means of obtaining restful sleep, including regular bed and wake times, limited exposure to stressful news (including COVID-19 stories), reduced consumption of alcohol and stimulants such as coffee or caffeine drinks, avoiding use of electronic devices in bed or near bedtime, and healthy lifestyle, including diet and exercise.
They also frown on self-medication with over-the-counter aids, because these products may not be addressing the underlying issue, as noted before.
“It is also foreseeable that there may be an increase in individuals who may require professional guidance to taper off from sleeping medications started or increased during the pandemic. While some of these sleep problems may be transient, it should be a high priority to ensure they do not evolve into chronic sleep disorders,” Dr. Kendzerska and colleagues wrote.
Research avenues
If there’s anything that causes specialists to lose sleep, it’s the lack of data or evidence to guide clinical care and research. Dr. Gozal emphasized that little is still known about the potential central nervous system effects of COVID-19, and said that should be an important focus for research into the still novel coronavirus.
“What happens post COVID and how might that affect subsequent recovery is a great question, and I don’t think we have good data there,” Dr. Ramar said. “What we do know is that patients develop the symptoms of fatigue, disrupted sleep, even ongoing fever, and unfortunately, this may persist for a long period of time even among patients who have otherwise recovered from COVID-19. We know that leaving that untreated from a sleep disorder perspective can exacerbate their daytime symptoms, and that’s where I would strongly recommend that they seek help with a sleep provider or if there are symptoms other than insomnia at least with a primary care provider.”
Among the many losses suffered by millions worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, the loss of sleep may be the most widespread, with potentially long-lasting, negative consequences on physical, mental, and emotional health, sleep researchers have found.
Results from multiple studies and surveys conducted during the pandemic show that a majority of subjects report clinically meaningful changes in sleep quality, sleep patterns, and sleep disturbances.
For example, a cross-sectional international survey conducted from late March through late April 2020 found that among more than 3,000 responders from 49 countries, 58% reported dissatisfaction with their sleep, and 40% reported a decrease in sleep quality during the pandemic, compared with pre-COVID-19 sleep, according to Uri Mandelkorn of the Natural Sleep Clinic in Jerusalem, and colleagues.
“In particular, this research raises the need to screen for worsening sleep patterns and use of sleeping aids in the more susceptible populations identified in this study, namely, women and people with insecure livelihoods or those subjected to strict quarantine. Health care providers should pay special attention to physical and psychological problems that this surge in sleep disturbances may cause,” they wrote. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
Sleeping, more or less
A coauthor of that study, David Gozal, MD, FCCP, a pediatric pulmonologist and sleep medicine specialist at the University of Missouri in Columbia, said that the pandemic has had paradoxical effects on sleeps patterns for many.
“At the beginning, with the initial phases of lockdown for COVID, for most of the people whose jobs were not affected and who did not lose their jobs, [for whom] there was not the anxiety of being jobless and financially strapped, but who now were staying at home, there was actually a benefit. People started reporting getting more sleep and, more importantly, more vivid dreams and things of that nature,” he said in an interview.
“But as the lockdown progressed, we saw progressively and increasingly more people having difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, using more medicines such as hypnotics to induce sleep, and we saw a 20% increase in the overall consumption of sleeping pills,” he said.
Similar results were seen in a cross-sectional survey of 843 adults in the United Kingdom, which showed that nearly 70% of participants reported a change in sleep patterns, only 45% reported having refreshing sleep, and 46% reported being sleepier during lockdown than before. Two-thirds of the respondents reported that the pandemic affected their mental health, and one-fourth reported increased alcohol consumption during lockdown. Those with suspected COVID-19 infections reported having more nightmares and abnormal sleep rhythms.
It is possible that the effects of COVID-19 infection on sleep may linger long after the infection itself has resolved, results of a cohort study from China suggest. As reported in The Lancet, among 1,655 patients discharged from the Jin Yin-tan hospital in Wuhan, 26% reported sleep disturbances 6 months after acute COVID-19 infection.
Self-medicating
Among 5,525 Canadians surveyed from April 3 through June 24, 2020, a large proportion reported the use of pharmacologic sleeps aids, said Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of respirology at the University of Ottawa.
“At the time of the survey completion, 27% of participants reported taking sleeping aids (prescribed or [over] the counter); across the entire sample, 8% of respondents reported an increase in the frequency of sleeping medication use during the outbreak compared to before the outbreak,” she said in an interview.
Many people resort to self-medicating with over-the-counter preparations such as melatonin and pain-relief nighttime formulations containing diphenhydramine (Benadryl), a first-generation antihistamine with sedative properties, noted Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, a critical care, pulmonary, and sleep medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and current president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
“When people are self-medicating for what they think is difficulty sleeping, the concern is that even if a diagnosis of insomnia has been established, there could be another, ongoing sleep disorder that may be undiagnosed, which might be causing the problem with insomnia,” he said in an interview.
“For example, obstructive sleep apnea might be causing people to wake up in the night or even contribute to difficulty falling asleep in the first place. So medicating for something without a known diagnosis may leave an underlying sleep disorder untreated, which won’t help the patient in either the short or the long term,” Dr. Ramar said.
Causes for concern
“For those people who have COVID, we have seen quite a few sleep issues develop. Those were not reported in the actual study, but in the clinic and subsequent studies published from other places,” Dr. Gozal said.
“People who suffered from COVID, and even people who supposedly did very well and were virtually asymptomatic or maybe had only a headache or fever but did not need to go to the hospital, many of those people reported either excessive sleepiness for a long period of time, and would sleep 2 or 3 hours more per night. Or the opposite was reported: There were those that after recovering reported that they couldn’t sleep – they were sleeping 4 or 5 hours when they normally sleep 7 or 8,” he said.
It’s also unclear from current evidence whether the reported uptick in sleep problems is related to stress or, in patients who have had COVID-19 infections, to physiologic causes.
Dr. Gozal said that insomnia in the time of COVID-19 could be attributed to a number of factors such as less daily exposure to natural light from people sheltering indoors, stress related to financial or health worries, depression, or other psychological factors.
It’s also, possible, however, that COVID-19-related physiological changes could contribute to sleep disorders, he said, pointing to a recent study in the Journal of Experimental Medicine showing that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can bind to neurons and cause metabolic changes in both infected and neighboring cells.
“My guess is that some of it is related more to behavioral impacts – people develop depression, changes in mood, anxiety, and so on, and all of these can translate into difficulties with sleep,” he said.
“It could be that in some instances – not very commonly – the virus will affect areas that control sleep in our brain, and that therefore we may see too much or too little sleep, and how to differentiate between all of these is the area that clearly needs to be explored, particularly in light of the finding that the virus can bind to brain cells and can induce substantial issues in the brain cells.”
Compromised immunity
It has been well documented that in addition to being, as Shakespeare called it, “the balm of hurt minds,” sleep has an important role in supporting the immune system.
“Sleep and immunity go together,” Dr. Ramar said. “When people have adequate sleep, their immune system is boosted. We know that there are good data from hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccinations, and recently on flu vaccination, that if people get sufficient duration of sleep before and after they receive the shot, their likelihood of building an immune response to that particular vaccination tends to go up.”
It’s reasonable to assume that the same would hold true for COVID-19 vaccinations, but this has yet to be shown, he added.
“We do know from the previous studies that persistent sleep problems can make people more susceptible to infection or impair recovery; not yet, I believe, from the COVID-19 infection perspective,” Dr. Kendzerska said. “In our study, we did find that, among other factors, having a chronic illness was associated with new sleep difficulties during the pandemic. We did not look separately if sleep difficulties were associated with the COVID-19 infection or symptoms, but this is a great question to address with longitudinal data we have.”
What to do?
All three sleep experts contacted for this article agreed that for patients with insomnia, mitigating stress through relaxation techniques or cognitive behavioral therapy is more beneficial than medication.
“Medications, even over-the-counter medications, all have side effects, and if one is taking a medication that has stimulants in place, such as pseudoephedrine in antihistamine combinations, that can potentially contribute to or exacerbate any underlying sleep disorders,” Dr. Ramar said.
Dr. Kendzerska recommended reserving medications such as melatonin, a chronobiotic therapy, for patients with sleep disorders related to circadian rhythm problems, including a sleep phase delay. Supplemental, short-term treatment with hypnotic agents such as zolpidem (Ambien), eszopiclone (Lunesta), or zaleplon (Sonata) should be used only as a last resort, she said.
Sleep medicine specialists recommend good sleep hygiene as the best means of obtaining restful sleep, including regular bed and wake times, limited exposure to stressful news (including COVID-19 stories), reduced consumption of alcohol and stimulants such as coffee or caffeine drinks, avoiding use of electronic devices in bed or near bedtime, and healthy lifestyle, including diet and exercise.
They also frown on self-medication with over-the-counter aids, because these products may not be addressing the underlying issue, as noted before.
“It is also foreseeable that there may be an increase in individuals who may require professional guidance to taper off from sleeping medications started or increased during the pandemic. While some of these sleep problems may be transient, it should be a high priority to ensure they do not evolve into chronic sleep disorders,” Dr. Kendzerska and colleagues wrote.
Research avenues
If there’s anything that causes specialists to lose sleep, it’s the lack of data or evidence to guide clinical care and research. Dr. Gozal emphasized that little is still known about the potential central nervous system effects of COVID-19, and said that should be an important focus for research into the still novel coronavirus.
“What happens post COVID and how might that affect subsequent recovery is a great question, and I don’t think we have good data there,” Dr. Ramar said. “What we do know is that patients develop the symptoms of fatigue, disrupted sleep, even ongoing fever, and unfortunately, this may persist for a long period of time even among patients who have otherwise recovered from COVID-19. We know that leaving that untreated from a sleep disorder perspective can exacerbate their daytime symptoms, and that’s where I would strongly recommend that they seek help with a sleep provider or if there are symptoms other than insomnia at least with a primary care provider.”
Biggest challenges practices faced from COVID last year: MGMA
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a December 2020 report from the Medical Group Management Association.
The report was assembled from the results of weekly Stat polls by MGMA, which consists of 15,000 group practices representing more than 350,000 physicians. During the course of the year, more than 4,800 practice leaders were surveyed, but the individual polls had far fewer respondents.
The 2020 data represents snapshots from different points in the developing public health crisis. Still, much of what practices experienced earlier in the pandemic continues to apply, and it’s likely to persist this year as long as the coronavirus spreads and its toll deepens.
One top-line conclusion of the report: the economic pain felt by practices has resulted in layoffs, furloughs, and/or reduced compensation for providers and staff.
In the May 19 weekly survey, 82% of respondents said some or all of their providers’ compensation had been affected by the crisis. About 62% said every provider had been affected. Provider compensation was cut in several ways, including reduced hours and salaries, reduced or eliminated bonuses, and lower allowances for continuing medical education.
About 61% of health care leaders said in the June 26 poll that their own compensation had decreased.
In the following week’s survey, one in three managers said their organization had reduced staff compensation. Nearly all of the respondents in this category predicted the salary reductions would be temporary.
As of March 17, early in the pandemic, 40% of health care leaders said they were experiencing staff shortages. An April 21 poll found that 53% of health care leaders were taking steps to address their providers’ and staffers’ mental health.
“The mental and emotional toll on everyone continues to be a concern, as public health authorities continue to report alarming numbers of new [COVID-19] cases, hospitalizations, and deaths,” MGMA commented.
Telehealth and remote monitoring
Nearly all of the health care leaders surveyed on March 31 reported that their practices had expanded telehealth access because of COVID-19. The percentage of patient visits handled remotely had dropped substantially by the fall, according to a Harvard University/Commonwealth Fund/Phreesia survey. Still, it remains significantly higher than it was before the pandemic.
“At the end of 2020, telemedicine continues to play a vital role in everyday practice operations and long-term planning,” the MGMA report said. One indication of this, the association said, is that health care leaders are recognizing new best practices in specialty telemedicine, such as pediatrics and ob.gyn.
According to an April 28 poll, the top three coding/billing challenges for telehealth and telephone visits amid COVID-19 were inconsistent payer rules, pay parity and accuracy, and documentation of virtual visits.
While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has loosened its regulations to allow reimbursement of telehealth in all locations and at the same level as in-person visits, most of those changes will not last beyond the public health crisis without new legislation.
More health care leaders are considering the use of remote patient monitoring, MGMA said, but only 21% of practices offered such services as of Sept. 15. The report drew a connection between these plans and the current challenge of deferred care.
In the July 21 poll, 87% of health care leaders reported that safety concerns were the top reason that patients deferred care amid COVID-19. The MGMA report quoted JaeLynn Williams, CEO of Air Methods, which provides helicopter ambulance services, as saying that many people are staying home even when they face life-threatening conditions such as chest pain, drug symptoms, inflamed appendix, and gallbladder pain.
Operational issues
Overall, MGMA said, practices that have taken a financial risk have done better during the pandemic than fee-for-service practices because their monthly capitation revenue has continued unabated. In contrast, “most groups’ struggles to sustain visits and procedures meant less revenue and lower compensation,” the report said.
In the August 18 survey, one in three health care leaders reported their practices were changing their operational metrics and how often they looked at those measures because of the pandemic. “Practice managers are asking for dashboard data in weeks instead of months to measure the drop in charges and forecast the resulting change in collections,” MGMA noted. “The type of data practice managers are asking for has also changed.”
Among the new metrics that practices are interested in, according to an MGMA article, are measures that track telehealth visits, the productivity of staff working at home, and the number of ancillary services and procedures that new patients might need based on historical data.
Nearly all health care leaders surveyed on Aug. 11 said the cost of obtaining personal protective equipment had increased during 2020. MGMA said it expects this situation to worsen if the pandemic lasts through the summer of 2021.
While everyone is talking about the botched launch of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there were also problems with flu vaccination in 2020. In the Sept. 25 poll, 34% of health care leaders reported their practices were experiencing delays in getting the flu vaccine.
Looking ahead
Looking further ahead, the report recommended that practices make plans to boost staff morale by restoring bonuses.
In addition, MGMA suggested that physician groups reassess their space needs. “The equation is simple – fewer nonclinical staff members at your facility means you should repurpose that office space or consider finding a better fit for your new real estate needs in 2021.”
Finally, MGMA noted that the practices expanding rather than contracting their business are those increasing their value-based revenues by taking on more risk. For those groups, “growing the patient panel can help [them] seek better rates in contract negotiations.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Widespread liver disease missed in patients with T2D
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.
This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.
“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.
“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D
Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.
One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .
The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.
Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”
“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.
“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”
“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.
These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
How to find NASH
Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.
“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.
“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.
But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.
“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment
Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.
“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.
Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.
“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”
Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.
“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.
Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
Getting the name right
Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.
A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.
“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.
While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”
Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.
“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”
Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.
Seven ways President Biden could now change health care
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.
Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.
How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?
Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”
Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill
Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.
“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.
“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”
Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.
The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.
In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”
Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
2. Restoring Obamacare
Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.
Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.
The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.
But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.
Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.
In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.
Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.
To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care
In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.
Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.
The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.
“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.
The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
4. Negotiating lower drug prices
Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.
“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.
Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.
“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”
Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
5. Introducing a public option
President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.
Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.
“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.
Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”
“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.
Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
6. Reviving the CMS
Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.
Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.
On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.
The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.
Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.
Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
7. Potentially changing health care without Congress
Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.
Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).
A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.
If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.
In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.
So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
Conclusion
Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.
But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCPs play a small part in low-value care spending
according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.
Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).
By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.
Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.
Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.
“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
Low-value care is costly, can be harmful
Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.
“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”
The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.
Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.
Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”
Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.
Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.
“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.
“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.
Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.
He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”
As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”
The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.
Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).
By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.
Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.
Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.
“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
Low-value care is costly, can be harmful
Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.
“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”
The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.
Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.
Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”
Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.
Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.
“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.
“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.
Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.
He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”
As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”
The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.
Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).
By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.
Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.
Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.
“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
Low-value care is costly, can be harmful
Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.
“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”
The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.
Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.
Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”
Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.
Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.
“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.
“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.
Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.
He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”
As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”
The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Biden kicks off health agenda with COVID actions, WHO outreach
President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.
Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.
At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.
Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.
The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.
The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.
“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.
Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.
At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.
Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.
The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.
The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.
“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.
Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.
At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.
The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.
Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.
The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.
The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.
“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
APA apologizes for past support of racism in psychiatry
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Psychiatric Association has issued a formal apology for its past support of structural racism in psychiatry.
The apology, issued Jan. 18, coincided with the federal holiday honoring the life and work of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We apologize for our role in perpetrating structural racism in this country, and we hope to begin to make amends for APA’s and psychiatry’s history of actions, intentional and not, that hurt Black, indigenous, and people of color,” APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, MPH, said in a statement.
The apology was written and issued by the APA Board of Trustees. It acknowledges practices and events in psychiatry that contributed to racial inequality, and expresses the organization’s commitment to developing antiracist policies that promote equity in mental health for all.
“This apology is one important step we needed to take to move forward to a more equitable future. The board is issuing this document on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, because we hope that it honors his life’s work of reconciliation and equality. We do not take that legacy or his call to action lightly and will continue our important work,” said Dr. Geller.
One involved the Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Va., the nation’s first psychiatric care facility, founded in 1773.
Eastern State, which for a time in the 1800s was called the Eastern Lunatic Asylum, was not segregated when founded. However, 70 years later, when the 13 founders of what is now the APA met to discuss improvements in mental health care delivery, the treatment system they created and the organization they founded aligned with that era’s racist social and political policies. In this system, Black patients received psychiatric care separately from White patients, the APA said.
The APA also acknowledged failing to act in Black Americans’ best interest at critical points in the United States’ sociopolitical evolution throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
“This inactivity was notably evident while white supremacists lynched Black people during the Reconstruction Era as well as when Jim Crow segregation was in effect, which led to ‘separate but equal’ standards of care starting in 1896,” the APA said.
Later, the APA failed to declare support for Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, along with further major civil rights legislation designed to improve social and psychological conditions for Black people, the organization admitted.
Throughout the decades that followed, psychiatric misdiagnosis among Black, indigenous, and people of color populations were also common, the APA acknowledged.
For example, late 20th century psychiatrists commonly attributed their minority patients’ frustrations to schizophrenia, while categorizing similar behaviors as “neuroticism” in White patients.
The APA pointed to one study which found that APA members diagnosed more Black than White patients with schizophrenia, even when both had otherwise identical clinical presentations.
“This reveals the basis for embedded discrimination within psychiatry that has contributed to reduced quality of care” for Black, indigenous, and people of color, and “perpetuation of dangerous stereotypes,” the APA said.
Saul Levin, MD, the APA’s medical director and CEO, said the Board of Trustees has taken “an important step in issuing this apology. The APA administration is committed to working toward inclusion, health equity, and fairness that everyone deserves.”
The APA Board of Trustees began drafting the apology late last year after it concluded that events and persistent inequities in health care and psychiatry had highlighted an organizational need for action.
The APA’s Presidential Task Force on Structural Racism is continuing with efforts to educate and engage members on the issue and implement changes within the organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.