Business of Medicine

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests that clinicians can offer chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy safely and effectively on an outpatient basis — a positive development as clinicians strive to expand access beyond metropolitan areas.

In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi). 

Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment. 

“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.” 
 

Great Outcomes, Low Access

Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”

Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”

As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.

A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.

“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”

A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications. 
 

Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle

Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview. 

“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.

Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.

“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”

A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted. 
 

Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community 

Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.

The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.

As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
 

Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial

As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized. 

Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.

“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”

In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”

And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting. 

Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
 

Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care

Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”

Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.

Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
 

What’s Next for Access to Therapy?

Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said. 

Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”

These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”

Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”

Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Our current healthcare system, which is a costly and unending cycle of merely managing chronic disease symptoms, is failing us. What we truly need is a patient-centered approach that restores health by addressing not just diagnoses but also the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This is the essence of whole-person health, and transformation toward this model of care is already underway.

This shift underscores why clinicians like me support placing lifestyle medicine at the foundation of health and healthcare. Evidence-based lifestyle medicine — which applies interventions in nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, positive social connections, and avoidance of risky substances to prevent, treat, and when used intensively, even reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease — is a medical specialty equipped to successfully address patients’ whole-person health in an effective, high-value clinical care delivery model.

As this transformation continues, here are four key lifestyle medicine trends for 2025.
 

Lifestyle Medicine Becomes More Ingrained in Primary Care

The 2021 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Implementing High-Quality Primary Care” sounded the alarm about the state of primary care and outlined a comprehensive approach to transform it. Lifestyle medicine emerged as a solution as clinicians found innovative ways to integrate lifestyle behavior interventions into existing care models in a financially sustainable, scalable manner. Examples include Blue Zones Health, a new delivery model that aligns lifestyle medicine–certified clinicians with community and payers in California, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lifestyle medicine program, where primary care patients are referred to virtual group coaching, a teaching kitchen, and classes on food as medicine, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Organizations dedicated to advancing primary care are paying close attention to the potential of lifestyle medicine. Currently, The Primary Care Collaborative has launched a new multi-year initiative on whole-person care and lifestyle medicine. This initiative aims to broaden the primary care community’s understanding of whole health and lifestyle medicine concepts and the evidence behind them, as well as lay the groundwork for future work to promote whole-person primary care and lifestyle medicine among an engaged and committed community of members. 
 

Digital Tools and AI Spark Lifestyle Medicine Innovations

American College of Lifestyle Medicine partner organizations are increasingly utilizing digital tools, such as health apps tailored to lifestyle behavior interventions, to expand access to care and support behavior change. One of the biggest challenges in lifestyle interventions is the limited time during patient encounters. But artificial intelligence (AI) tools can record (with patient permission) and summarize encounters, enabling clinicians to turn away from their keyboards and be more present to learn about the unique living, environmental, and societal factors that impact every individual’s lifestyle choices. AI tools can create individualized whole-food, plant-predominant meal plans or physical activity schedules for patients in just a few seconds. The potential for AI in lifestyle medicine is vast, and its applications were further explored at the American College of Lifestyle Medicine’s annual conference in October.

Behavior Change and Sustainability of the Food-as-Medicine Movement

Significant investments have been made in food as medicine to address diet-related chronic diseases. But merely providing medically tailored meals or produce prescriptions is not enough because once the prescriptions end, so will the health benefits. Clinicians certified in lifestyle medicine are prepared to coach patients into long-term behavior change, supporting them with education and information to shop for and prepare tasty, nutritious, and affordable food. The same applies to the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 drugs. Although the initial weight loss offers motivation, lifestyle changes are necessary to sustain long-term health benefits beyond medications.

Lifestyle Medicine Emerges as a Strategy to Achieve Health Equity 

Lifestyle behavior interventions have the unique ability to address health status and social drivers of health. For example, food as medicine affects an individual’s health while also addressing nutrition security. Certainly, no medication can both improve health status and feed someone. The addition of payment for the screening of social drivers of health to the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is an important step toward connecting clinicians with community health–based organizations that can address factors that influence patients’ ability to adhere to lifestyle behavior care plans. Lifestyle medicine clinicians are poised to lead this effort because they are already having conversations with patients about their environment, living conditions, and access to nutritious food. 

The changes coming to our healthcare system are exciting and long overdue. Lifestyle medicine is positioned to be at the forefront of this transformation now and in the future.

Dr. Patel, president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in St. Louis, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.

According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.

The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.

In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.

“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”

The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.

On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.

“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.

Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.

Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.

“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.

Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.

“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”

Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.

“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.” 

Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.

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

Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.

According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.

The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.

In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.

“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”

The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.

On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.

“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.

Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.

Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.

“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.

Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.

“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”

Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.

“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.” 

Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.

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

Despite some recent progress in compensation equity, women in medicine continue to be paid significantly lower salaries than men.

According to the Female Compensation Report 2024 by Medscape, male doctors of any kind earned an average salary of about $400,000, whereas female doctors earned approximately $309,000 — a 29% gap.

The report analyzed survey data from 7000 practicing physicians who were recruited over a 4-month period starting in October 2023. The respondents comprised roughly 60% women representing over 29 specialties.

In the 2022 report, the pay gap between the genders was 32%. But some women in the field argued substantial headway is still needed.

“You can try and pick apart the data, but I’d say we’re not really making progress,” said Susan T. Hingle, MD, an internist in Illinois and president of the American Medical Women’s Association. “A decline by a couple of percentage points is not significantly addressing this pay gap that over a lifetime is huge, can be millions of dollars.”

The gender gap was narrower among female primary care physicians (PCPs) vs medical specialists. Female PCPs earned around $253,000 per year, whereas male PCPs earned about $295,000 per year. Hingle suggested that female PCPs may enjoy more pay equity because health systems have a harder time filling these positions.

On the other hand, the gap for specialists rose from 27% in 2022 to 31% in 2023. Differences in how aggressively women and men negotiate compensation packages may play a role, said Hingle.

“Taking negotiation out of the equation would be progress to me,” said Hingle.

Pay disparity did not appear to be the result of time spent on the job — female doctors reported an average of 49 work hours per week, whereas their male counterparts reported 50 work hours per week.

Meanwhile, the pay gap progressively worsened over time. Among doctors aged 28-34 years, men earned an average of $53,000 more than women. By ages 46-49, men earned an average of $157,000 more than women.

“I had to take my employer to court to get equal compensation, sad as it is to say,” said a hospitalist in North Carolina.

Nearly 60% of women surveyed felt they were not being paid fairly for their efforts, up from less than half reported in Medscape’s 2021 report. Hingle said that this figure may not only reflect sentiments about the compensation gap, but also less support on the job, including fewer physician assistants (PAs), nurses, and administrative staff.

“At my job, I do the work of multiple people,” said a survey respondent. “Junior resident, senior resident, social worker, nurse practitioner, PA — as well as try to be a teacher, researcher, [and] an excellent doctor and have the time to make patients feel as if they are not in a rush.”

Roughly 30% of women physicians said they would not choose to go into medicine again if given the chance compared with 26% of male physicians.

“Gender inequities in our profession have a direct impact,” said Shikha Jain, MD, an oncologist in Chicago and founder of the Women in Medicine nonprofit. “I think women in general don’t feel valued in the care they’re providing.” 

Jain cited bullying, harassment, and fewer opportunities for leadership and recognition as factors beyond pay that affect female physicians’ feelings of being valued.

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In late October, a federal grand jury charged a Detroit-area medical oncologist Naveed Aslam, MD, in an indictment for his part in a scheme to illegally sell cancer drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam acquired and sold more than $17 million in cancer drugs and personally netted more than $2.5 million during the scheme.

The charges against Aslam, filed on October 23 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, include 10 counts of illegally selling or trading prescription drugs and one count of conspiring to do so.

“Dr. Aslam’s alleged participation in this scheme not only allowed him to profit unlawfully from the sale of cancer drugs but it also posed a serious threat by potentially placing these medications into the wrong hands,” Cheyvoryea Gibson, special agent in charge of the FBI in Michigan, said in a press release announcing the indictment.

The investigation is being conducted jointly by the FBI, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations.

The indictment alleges that Aslam was recruited by an unnamed operator of a Michigan corporation that engaged in business as a retail pharmacy and in the wholesale distribution of expensive prescription drugs, largely oncology drugs.

According to the indictment, Aslam and the operator came to an agreement where Aslam would purchase these expensive drugs from an authorized distributor under the false pretense that he was going to prescribe them to patients.

Instead, Aslam allegedly “sold and transferred the prescription drugs” to or through the Michigan business, with involvement from the unnamed operator and a second unnamed individual.

The unnamed individuals “identified customers interested in buying prescription cancer drugs” and “communicated with Dr. Aslam about what cancer drugs were requested,” according to the press release. “Dr. Aslam used his access to certain cancer drugs through his medical practice, Somerset Hematology and Oncology, P.C., to order and purchase the cancer drugs from his supplier.”

The indictment lays out that Aslam allegedly profited from this scheme in several ways, which included charging the Michigan business more than he paid the distributor for the drugs, sharing the profits when the business resold the drugs at a markup, and receiving rebates and discounts from the distributor “based on the amount of qualifying drugs he purchased and resold.”

According to the indictment, the scheme ran from early 2019 to mid-2023 and included four antibody drug conjugates — trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), enfortumab vedotin (Padcev), tisotumab vedotin (Tivdak), and sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy) — and the monoclonal antibody mogamulizumab (Poteligeo) for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

By working with Aslam, the operatives “obtained prescription drugs from an authorized distributor that they would not otherwise have been permitted to purchase, and which they were able to sell at a profit,” according to the indictment.

Both the prosecuting assistant US attorney, Andrew Lievense, and Aslam’s defense lawyer, Daniel Dena, declined to comment for this news organization.

The prosecutor is seeking to recoup the more than $2.5 million Aslam allegedly pocketed, according to the indictment. The press release also noted that an “indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.”
 

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

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Labor and delivery centers run by family medicine (FM) healthcare providers have a lower cesarean delivery rate and better safety culture than centers led by obstetricians (OBs), based on observational data from Iowa hospitals.

These findings show how FM providers backed up by general surgeons can deliver a high standard of obstetric care, suggesting that this team-based model could address growing maternity care deserts across the United States, lead author Emily White VanGompel, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“Despite decades of research documenting the high quality of care provided by FM physicians, controversy continues regarding whether family physicians trained in existing FM residency programs should provide intrapartum obstetric care,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

This controversy, though long-standing, has gained more attention in the past decade with worsening severe maternal morbidity and maternal health disparities in rural areas, along with state-based perinatal quality initiatives to improve care and reduce severe maternal morbidity. These efforts have largely involved obstetric, nursing, and midwifery organizations, with minimal input from FM professionals.

The role of FM in these initiatives therefore remains unexplored.

This is a clear blind spot, according to White VanGompel and colleagues, who noted that 40% of counties in the United States do not have an OB or a midwife, while only 6.5% of counties lack an FM physician. In other words, FM providers may be the most rational — and widely available — specialty to close gaps in obstetric care.
 

Study Reveals Fewer C-Sections, Better Safety Culture Among FM-Led Centers

To explore the viability of an FM-led model, the investigators used a cross-sectional survey to assess the relationship between staffing models and perinatal outcomes. A total of 849 clinicians, including physicians, nurses, and midwives from 39 hospitals, were surveyed as part of a statewide quality improvement initiative designed to reduce cesarean delivery rates. The hospitals were categorized on the basis of the type of physician providing intrapartum care: Some hospitals were staffed exclusively by FM physicians (13), some by OBs only (11), and others by both types of providers (15).

The primary outcome measured was the low-risk cesarean delivery rate, specifically the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rate.

The study found that FM-only hospitals, all of which were located in rural areas with fewer than 1000 annual births, had significantly lower cesarean delivery rates than hospitals with mixed or OB-only staffing. After adjusting for factors such as hospital birth volume, geographic location, patient body mass index, maternal age, and insurance status, FM-only hospitals had an adjusted 34.3% lower rate of cesarean sections than hospitals with both FM and OB physicians (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98).

In addition to lower cesarean delivery rates, the study revealed that hospitals staffed exclusively by FM physicians reported a stronger safety culture, as measured by nurse perceptions of unit norms supporting vaginal birth. Nurses at FM-only hospitals were more likely to endorse safety practices that favored vaginal delivery, a finding that was statistically significant. The study also found that nurses at FM-only hospitals rated overall unit safety culture higher than those at hospitals staffed solely by OBs or a combination of FM physicians and OBs.

“I’m not surprised [by these findings],” said Joedrecka S. Brown Speights, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health at Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee.

She noted that the data echo previous reports demonstrating the broader benefits of FM involvement.

“When people get primary care, life is better,” Brown Speights said, citing improved outcomes, greater health equity, and lower overall healthcare costs associated with high-quality primary care.

“That’s what we need for women and for pregnant persons, especially in rural areas,” she said.
 

The Model Itself Could Be the Biggest Finding

According to White VanGompel, the biggest finding from the study is the existence of the team-based model itself — where FM providers lead obstetric care with support from general surgeons.

“Quite honestly, many people around the country, including family physicians like myself, did not know [this model] existed and was thriving in these rural areas that are on the verge of becoming maternity care deserts,” White VanGompel said in an interview. “That makes a huge difference clinically because those are patients that otherwise wouldn’t have access to comprehensive pregnancy care.”

This FM-led model has the added advantage of improving continuity of care, she added, noting that issues like maternal mental health — a major contributor to postpartum morbidity and mortality — are a primary care issue.

“If we are not involved in that patient’s pregnancy care, and we don’t know that they’ve had this postpartum course or they’ve had antepartum depression, it’s very hard for us to then jump in and accurately treat that person,” White VanGompel said. “If we’re involved in the entire course of care, we can make that contribution.”

Emilio A. Russo, MD, Marie Lahasky Professor of Family Medicine and chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Louisiana State University (LSU) Health Sciences Center New Orleans, and program director of the LSU Rural Family Medicine Program, Bogalusa, Louisiana, agreed that FM providers’ more continuous care, along with experience treating both mothers and babies, make them invaluable in the maternity care setting.

“We are missing the opportunity to incorporate family physicians and nurse midwives into the continuum of care for women, especially in these remote areas,” Russo said in an interview. “Family physicians and nurse midwives are the only two [groups] in the health system trained and licensed to care for both mother and baby, and I have to believe that there’s something profoundly important about that.”
 

Barriers May Block FM Providers From Obstetric Practice

In a recent Birth editorial, Simone Hampton, MD, of Carle Health Family Medicine, Urbana, Illinois, explored a key question: Why aren’t we using FM to help confront the maternal mortality crisis in the United States?

Hampton described how obstetric care is often siloed between specialties and barriers, including insufficient training, organizational constraints, and malpractice coverage, deter FM physicians from practicing obstetrics.

In an additional written comment, Hampton suggested that family doctors also face misconceptions about their ability to provide obstetric care, even with rigorous training and a comprehensive skill set.

“We are interested in caring for families,” Hampton said, emphasizing how FM providers are uniquely trained to care for the maternal dyad in a way that OBs are not and often view birth as a more natural process that typically does not require intervention.

Unfortunately, hospital administrators often maintain a different view, Brown Speights said, describing how some centers limit obstetric care privileges exclusively to OBs or require case volume minimums that can be tough to reach in a rural setting.

“If you have low-volume places, you can have a challenge meeting the numbers to keep up the requirements to get credentialed to practice obstetrics at the hospital,” she said, which only exacerbates gaps in maternity care access.

“This type of skill set in a rural place often, by default, represents a lower volume,” Russo said. “So how do the interests of competency and access intersect in this space?”

Generating more data to support the quality of FM-led obstetric models could be the clearest path forward, according to White VanGompel. She suggested that team-based approaches like the one described in the present study deserve further investigation in other hospital systems.

Until then, this gap in maternity care remains an ongoing, and often personal, concern.

“The more I do this quality work, the more I’m in these rooms where I’m the only family physician and I’m surrounded by all of these amazing labor and delivery nurses and obstetricians and maternal-fetal medicine doctors and midwives and doulas,” White VanGompel said. “I’m just constantly asking myself, Why am I the only family doctor in the room?”

This study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the North Shore Auxiliary. The Iowa Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is supported by a State Maternal Health Innovation award from the Health Resources and Services Administration. The investigators, Hampton and Brown Speights, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

Labor and delivery centers run by family medicine (FM) healthcare providers have a lower cesarean delivery rate and better safety culture than centers led by obstetricians (OBs), based on observational data from Iowa hospitals.

These findings show how FM providers backed up by general surgeons can deliver a high standard of obstetric care, suggesting that this team-based model could address growing maternity care deserts across the United States, lead author Emily White VanGompel, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“Despite decades of research documenting the high quality of care provided by FM physicians, controversy continues regarding whether family physicians trained in existing FM residency programs should provide intrapartum obstetric care,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

This controversy, though long-standing, has gained more attention in the past decade with worsening severe maternal morbidity and maternal health disparities in rural areas, along with state-based perinatal quality initiatives to improve care and reduce severe maternal morbidity. These efforts have largely involved obstetric, nursing, and midwifery organizations, with minimal input from FM professionals.

The role of FM in these initiatives therefore remains unexplored.

This is a clear blind spot, according to White VanGompel and colleagues, who noted that 40% of counties in the United States do not have an OB or a midwife, while only 6.5% of counties lack an FM physician. In other words, FM providers may be the most rational — and widely available — specialty to close gaps in obstetric care.
 

Study Reveals Fewer C-Sections, Better Safety Culture Among FM-Led Centers

To explore the viability of an FM-led model, the investigators used a cross-sectional survey to assess the relationship between staffing models and perinatal outcomes. A total of 849 clinicians, including physicians, nurses, and midwives from 39 hospitals, were surveyed as part of a statewide quality improvement initiative designed to reduce cesarean delivery rates. The hospitals were categorized on the basis of the type of physician providing intrapartum care: Some hospitals were staffed exclusively by FM physicians (13), some by OBs only (11), and others by both types of providers (15).

The primary outcome measured was the low-risk cesarean delivery rate, specifically the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rate.

The study found that FM-only hospitals, all of which were located in rural areas with fewer than 1000 annual births, had significantly lower cesarean delivery rates than hospitals with mixed or OB-only staffing. After adjusting for factors such as hospital birth volume, geographic location, patient body mass index, maternal age, and insurance status, FM-only hospitals had an adjusted 34.3% lower rate of cesarean sections than hospitals with both FM and OB physicians (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98).

In addition to lower cesarean delivery rates, the study revealed that hospitals staffed exclusively by FM physicians reported a stronger safety culture, as measured by nurse perceptions of unit norms supporting vaginal birth. Nurses at FM-only hospitals were more likely to endorse safety practices that favored vaginal delivery, a finding that was statistically significant. The study also found that nurses at FM-only hospitals rated overall unit safety culture higher than those at hospitals staffed solely by OBs or a combination of FM physicians and OBs.

“I’m not surprised [by these findings],” said Joedrecka S. Brown Speights, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health at Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee.

She noted that the data echo previous reports demonstrating the broader benefits of FM involvement.

“When people get primary care, life is better,” Brown Speights said, citing improved outcomes, greater health equity, and lower overall healthcare costs associated with high-quality primary care.

“That’s what we need for women and for pregnant persons, especially in rural areas,” she said.
 

The Model Itself Could Be the Biggest Finding

According to White VanGompel, the biggest finding from the study is the existence of the team-based model itself — where FM providers lead obstetric care with support from general surgeons.

“Quite honestly, many people around the country, including family physicians like myself, did not know [this model] existed and was thriving in these rural areas that are on the verge of becoming maternity care deserts,” White VanGompel said in an interview. “That makes a huge difference clinically because those are patients that otherwise wouldn’t have access to comprehensive pregnancy care.”

This FM-led model has the added advantage of improving continuity of care, she added, noting that issues like maternal mental health — a major contributor to postpartum morbidity and mortality — are a primary care issue.

“If we are not involved in that patient’s pregnancy care, and we don’t know that they’ve had this postpartum course or they’ve had antepartum depression, it’s very hard for us to then jump in and accurately treat that person,” White VanGompel said. “If we’re involved in the entire course of care, we can make that contribution.”

Emilio A. Russo, MD, Marie Lahasky Professor of Family Medicine and chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Louisiana State University (LSU) Health Sciences Center New Orleans, and program director of the LSU Rural Family Medicine Program, Bogalusa, Louisiana, agreed that FM providers’ more continuous care, along with experience treating both mothers and babies, make them invaluable in the maternity care setting.

“We are missing the opportunity to incorporate family physicians and nurse midwives into the continuum of care for women, especially in these remote areas,” Russo said in an interview. “Family physicians and nurse midwives are the only two [groups] in the health system trained and licensed to care for both mother and baby, and I have to believe that there’s something profoundly important about that.”
 

Barriers May Block FM Providers From Obstetric Practice

In a recent Birth editorial, Simone Hampton, MD, of Carle Health Family Medicine, Urbana, Illinois, explored a key question: Why aren’t we using FM to help confront the maternal mortality crisis in the United States?

Hampton described how obstetric care is often siloed between specialties and barriers, including insufficient training, organizational constraints, and malpractice coverage, deter FM physicians from practicing obstetrics.

In an additional written comment, Hampton suggested that family doctors also face misconceptions about their ability to provide obstetric care, even with rigorous training and a comprehensive skill set.

“We are interested in caring for families,” Hampton said, emphasizing how FM providers are uniquely trained to care for the maternal dyad in a way that OBs are not and often view birth as a more natural process that typically does not require intervention.

Unfortunately, hospital administrators often maintain a different view, Brown Speights said, describing how some centers limit obstetric care privileges exclusively to OBs or require case volume minimums that can be tough to reach in a rural setting.

“If you have low-volume places, you can have a challenge meeting the numbers to keep up the requirements to get credentialed to practice obstetrics at the hospital,” she said, which only exacerbates gaps in maternity care access.

“This type of skill set in a rural place often, by default, represents a lower volume,” Russo said. “So how do the interests of competency and access intersect in this space?”

Generating more data to support the quality of FM-led obstetric models could be the clearest path forward, according to White VanGompel. She suggested that team-based approaches like the one described in the present study deserve further investigation in other hospital systems.

Until then, this gap in maternity care remains an ongoing, and often personal, concern.

“The more I do this quality work, the more I’m in these rooms where I’m the only family physician and I’m surrounded by all of these amazing labor and delivery nurses and obstetricians and maternal-fetal medicine doctors and midwives and doulas,” White VanGompel said. “I’m just constantly asking myself, Why am I the only family doctor in the room?”

This study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the North Shore Auxiliary. The Iowa Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is supported by a State Maternal Health Innovation award from the Health Resources and Services Administration. The investigators, Hampton and Brown Speights, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

Labor and delivery centers run by family medicine (FM) healthcare providers have a lower cesarean delivery rate and better safety culture than centers led by obstetricians (OBs), based on observational data from Iowa hospitals.

These findings show how FM providers backed up by general surgeons can deliver a high standard of obstetric care, suggesting that this team-based model could address growing maternity care deserts across the United States, lead author Emily White VanGompel, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported.

“Despite decades of research documenting the high quality of care provided by FM physicians, controversy continues regarding whether family physicians trained in existing FM residency programs should provide intrapartum obstetric care,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Family Medicine.

This controversy, though long-standing, has gained more attention in the past decade with worsening severe maternal morbidity and maternal health disparities in rural areas, along with state-based perinatal quality initiatives to improve care and reduce severe maternal morbidity. These efforts have largely involved obstetric, nursing, and midwifery organizations, with minimal input from FM professionals.

The role of FM in these initiatives therefore remains unexplored.

This is a clear blind spot, according to White VanGompel and colleagues, who noted that 40% of counties in the United States do not have an OB or a midwife, while only 6.5% of counties lack an FM physician. In other words, FM providers may be the most rational — and widely available — specialty to close gaps in obstetric care.
 

Study Reveals Fewer C-Sections, Better Safety Culture Among FM-Led Centers

To explore the viability of an FM-led model, the investigators used a cross-sectional survey to assess the relationship between staffing models and perinatal outcomes. A total of 849 clinicians, including physicians, nurses, and midwives from 39 hospitals, were surveyed as part of a statewide quality improvement initiative designed to reduce cesarean delivery rates. The hospitals were categorized on the basis of the type of physician providing intrapartum care: Some hospitals were staffed exclusively by FM physicians (13), some by OBs only (11), and others by both types of providers (15).

The primary outcome measured was the low-risk cesarean delivery rate, specifically the nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean delivery rate.

The study found that FM-only hospitals, all of which were located in rural areas with fewer than 1000 annual births, had significantly lower cesarean delivery rates than hospitals with mixed or OB-only staffing. After adjusting for factors such as hospital birth volume, geographic location, patient body mass index, maternal age, and insurance status, FM-only hospitals had an adjusted 34.3% lower rate of cesarean sections than hospitals with both FM and OB physicians (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98).

In addition to lower cesarean delivery rates, the study revealed that hospitals staffed exclusively by FM physicians reported a stronger safety culture, as measured by nurse perceptions of unit norms supporting vaginal birth. Nurses at FM-only hospitals were more likely to endorse safety practices that favored vaginal delivery, a finding that was statistically significant. The study also found that nurses at FM-only hospitals rated overall unit safety culture higher than those at hospitals staffed solely by OBs or a combination of FM physicians and OBs.

“I’m not surprised [by these findings],” said Joedrecka S. Brown Speights, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health at Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee.

She noted that the data echo previous reports demonstrating the broader benefits of FM involvement.

“When people get primary care, life is better,” Brown Speights said, citing improved outcomes, greater health equity, and lower overall healthcare costs associated with high-quality primary care.

“That’s what we need for women and for pregnant persons, especially in rural areas,” she said.
 

The Model Itself Could Be the Biggest Finding

According to White VanGompel, the biggest finding from the study is the existence of the team-based model itself — where FM providers lead obstetric care with support from general surgeons.

“Quite honestly, many people around the country, including family physicians like myself, did not know [this model] existed and was thriving in these rural areas that are on the verge of becoming maternity care deserts,” White VanGompel said in an interview. “That makes a huge difference clinically because those are patients that otherwise wouldn’t have access to comprehensive pregnancy care.”

This FM-led model has the added advantage of improving continuity of care, she added, noting that issues like maternal mental health — a major contributor to postpartum morbidity and mortality — are a primary care issue.

“If we are not involved in that patient’s pregnancy care, and we don’t know that they’ve had this postpartum course or they’ve had antepartum depression, it’s very hard for us to then jump in and accurately treat that person,” White VanGompel said. “If we’re involved in the entire course of care, we can make that contribution.”

Emilio A. Russo, MD, Marie Lahasky Professor of Family Medicine and chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Louisiana State University (LSU) Health Sciences Center New Orleans, and program director of the LSU Rural Family Medicine Program, Bogalusa, Louisiana, agreed that FM providers’ more continuous care, along with experience treating both mothers and babies, make them invaluable in the maternity care setting.

“We are missing the opportunity to incorporate family physicians and nurse midwives into the continuum of care for women, especially in these remote areas,” Russo said in an interview. “Family physicians and nurse midwives are the only two [groups] in the health system trained and licensed to care for both mother and baby, and I have to believe that there’s something profoundly important about that.”
 

Barriers May Block FM Providers From Obstetric Practice

In a recent Birth editorial, Simone Hampton, MD, of Carle Health Family Medicine, Urbana, Illinois, explored a key question: Why aren’t we using FM to help confront the maternal mortality crisis in the United States?

Hampton described how obstetric care is often siloed between specialties and barriers, including insufficient training, organizational constraints, and malpractice coverage, deter FM physicians from practicing obstetrics.

In an additional written comment, Hampton suggested that family doctors also face misconceptions about their ability to provide obstetric care, even with rigorous training and a comprehensive skill set.

“We are interested in caring for families,” Hampton said, emphasizing how FM providers are uniquely trained to care for the maternal dyad in a way that OBs are not and often view birth as a more natural process that typically does not require intervention.

Unfortunately, hospital administrators often maintain a different view, Brown Speights said, describing how some centers limit obstetric care privileges exclusively to OBs or require case volume minimums that can be tough to reach in a rural setting.

“If you have low-volume places, you can have a challenge meeting the numbers to keep up the requirements to get credentialed to practice obstetrics at the hospital,” she said, which only exacerbates gaps in maternity care access.

“This type of skill set in a rural place often, by default, represents a lower volume,” Russo said. “So how do the interests of competency and access intersect in this space?”

Generating more data to support the quality of FM-led obstetric models could be the clearest path forward, according to White VanGompel. She suggested that team-based approaches like the one described in the present study deserve further investigation in other hospital systems.

Until then, this gap in maternity care remains an ongoing, and often personal, concern.

“The more I do this quality work, the more I’m in these rooms where I’m the only family physician and I’m surrounded by all of these amazing labor and delivery nurses and obstetricians and maternal-fetal medicine doctors and midwives and doulas,” White VanGompel said. “I’m just constantly asking myself, Why am I the only family doctor in the room?”

This study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the North Shore Auxiliary. The Iowa Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is supported by a State Maternal Health Innovation award from the Health Resources and Services Administration. The investigators, Hampton and Brown Speights, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.