Search This Blog

Friday, July 5, 2019

Primary care positions filled by 4th-year med students lowest on record

According to the Match, 8,116 internal medicine positions were offered, the highest number on record and the most positions offered within any specialty.
Only 41.5% were filled by seniors pursuing their MDs from U.S. medical schools. Similar trends were seen this year in family medicine and pediatrics.

Despite hospital systems and health officials calling out the need for more primary care doctors, graduates of U.S. medical schools are becoming less likely to choose to specialize in one of those fields.
A record-high number of primary care positions was offered in the 2019 National Resident Matching Program — known to doctors as “the Match.” It determines where a medical student will study in their chosen specialty after graduation. But this year, the percentage of primary care positions filled by fourth-year medical students was the lowest on record.
“I think part of it has to do with income,” said Mona Signer, the CEO of the Match. “Primary care specialties are not the highest paying.” She suggested that where a student gets a degree also influences the choice. “Many medical schools are part of academic medical centers where research and specialization is a priority,” she said.
The three key primary care fields are internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics. According to the 2019 Match report, 8,116 internal medicine positions were offered, the highest number on record and the most positions offered within any specialty, but only 41.5% were filled by seniors pursuing their M.D.s from U.S. medical schools. Similar trends were seen this year in family medicine and pediatrics.
In their final year of medical school, students apply and interview for residency programs in their chosen specialty. The Match, a nonprofit group, then assigns them a residency program based on how the applicant and the program ranked each other.
Since 2011, the percentage of U.S.-trained allopathic, or M.D., physicians who have matched into primary care positions has been on the decline, according to an analysis of historical Match data by Kaiser Health News.
But, over the same period, the percentage of U.S.-trained osteopathic and foreign-trained physicians matching into primary care roles has increased. 2019 marks the first year in which the percentage of osteopathic and foreign-trained doctors surpassed the percentage of U.S. trained medical doctors matching into primary care positions.
Medical colleges granting M.D. degrees graduate nearly three-quarters of U.S. students moving on to become doctors. The rest graduate from osteopathic schools, granting D.O. degrees. The five medical schools with the highest percentage of graduates who chose primary care are all osteopathic institutions, according to the latest U.S. News & World Report survey.
Beyond the standard medical curriculum, osteopathic students receive training in manipulative medicine, a hands-on technique focused on muscles and joints that can be used to diagnose and treat conditions. They are licensed by states and work side by side with M.D.s in physician practices and health systems.
Although the osteopathic graduates have been able to join the main residency match or go through a separate osteopathic match through this year, in 2020 the two matches will be combined.
Physicians who are trained at foreign medical schools, including both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, also take unfilled primary care residency positions. In the 2019 match, 68.9% of foreign-trained physicians went into internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics.
But, despite osteopathic graduates and foreign-trained medical doctors taking up these primary care spots, a looming primary care physician shortage is still expected.
The Association of American Medical Colleges predicts a shortage of between 21,100 and 55,200 primary care physicians by 2032. More doctors will be needed in the coming years to care for aging baby boomers, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions. The obesity rate is alsoincreasing, which portends more people with chronic health problems.
Studies have shown that states with a higher ratio of primary care physicians have better health and lower rates of mortality. Patients who regularly see a primary care physician also have lower health costs than those without one.
But choosing a specialty other than primary care often means a higher paycheck.
According to a recently published survey of physicians conducted by Medscape, internal medicine doctors’ salaries average $243,000 annually. That’s a little over half of what the highest earners, orthopedic physicians, make with an average annual salary of $482,000. Family medicine and pediatrics earn even less than internal medicine, at $231,000 and $225,000 per year, respectively.
Dr. Eric Hsieh, the internal medicine residency program director at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, said another deterrent is the amount of time primary care doctors spend filling out patients’ electronic medical records.
“I don’t think people realize how involved electronic medical records are,” said Hsieh. “You have to synthesize everything and coordinate all of the care. And something that I see with the residents in our program is that the time spent on electronic medical records rather than caring for patients frustrates them.”
The Medscape survey confirms this. Internists appear to be more burdened with paperwork than other specialties, and 80% of internists report spending 10 or more hours a week on administrative tasks.
The result: Only 62% of internal medicine doctors said they would choose to go into their specialty again — the lowest percentage on record for all physician specialties surveyed.
Elsa Pearson, a health policy analyst at Boston University, said one way to keep and attract primary care doctors might be to shift some tasks to health care providers who aren’t doctors, such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants.
“The primary care that they provide compared to a physician is just as effective,” said Pearson. They wouldn’t replace physicians but could help lift the burden and free up doctors for more complicated care issues.
Pearson said more medical scribes, individuals who take notes for doctors while they are seeing patients, could also help to ease the doctors’ burden of electronic health record documentation.
Another solution is spreading the word about the loan forgiveness programs available to those who choose to pursue primary care, usually in an underserved area of the country, said Dr. Tyree Winters, the associate director of the pediatric residency program at Goryeb Children’s Hospital in New Jersey.
“The trend has been more so thinking about the amount of debt that a student has, compared to potential income in primary care,” said Winters. “But that’s not considering things like medical debt forgiveness through state or federal programs, which really can help individuals who want to choose primary care.”

AstraZeneca appeals NICE rejection of Tagrisso lung cancer med

AstraZeneca is appealing against NICE’s decision not to recommend funding for its lung cancer drug Tagrisso (osimertinib) in untreated patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
In final draft guidance, NICE said it had rejected regular NHS funding for Tagrisso, because the survival benefits compared with standard treatment such as AZ’s older drug Iressa (gefitinib) are unclear in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.
Tagrisso has been the driving force behind AZ’s sales recovery after a steep patent cliff – it generated $630 million in Q1 alone and is the company’s top selling drug after first approval in 2015 in a more advanced form of the disease.
NICE had been considering results from the FLAURA trial, comparing Tagrisso with Roche’s Tarceva (erlotinib) and AZ’s Iressa (gefitinib) in untreated patients.
Patients in the trial had either exon 19 deletion (del19) or exon 21 (L858R) mutations, accounting for around 90% of EGFR mutations.
NICE said it noted progression-free survival was 18.9 months on Tagrisso compared with 10.2 months on standard care.
Overall survival data is not mature but data gathered so far show that Tagrisso will likely extend this too.
However NICE is concerned that data so far do not show the size of treatment benefits, and that AZ’s economic model does not fully capture the benefits of subsequent treatments.
As a result Tagrisso’s cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is greater than the £30,000 threshold that NICE usually applies.
However NICE also ruled that Tagrisso does not qualify for End of Life consideration, which gives extra financial leeway for drugs where patients typically have less than two years to live.
AZ said that analyses submitted to NICE show that it would be considered cost-effective if EoL status was granted.
Pascal Soriot Astra Zeneca
AZ’s CEO Pascal Soriot said: “We are very disappointed with this decision and will appeal. The UK has the second worst lung cancer survival outcomes in Europe and patients need new innovative treatments.
“NHS data show that patients in England who would be eligible for our medicine have very low survival rates and therefore Tagrisso should qualify for End of Life consideration to evaluate cost-effectiveness.”
Dr Carles Escriu, medical oncology consultant at The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool, said: “I am surprised at this negative decision. While I understand the methodological challenge for NICE, the fact is that NHS data show that patients with this type of lung cancer survive for 17 months, which is within the 24-month short life expectancy threshold for End of Life consideration.”

Pfizer’s lung cancer drug Vizimpro cleared for NHS front-line use

Pfizer has stolen a march on rival AstraZeneca in the first-line non-small cell lung cancer category, after NICE backed the use of its EGFR inhibitor Vizimpro for NHS use.
The once-daily pill will now be routinely available for adults with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who have tested positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. Earlier, NICE rejected the drug on the grounds that it wasn’t a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
AZ has not been so lucky, with the cost-effectiveness agency turning down its EGFR inhibitor Tagrisso (osimertinib) for the same indication, although the company has said it intends to appeal the decision.
Pfizer has offered a discount on Vizimpro (dacomitinib), which was approved by the EMA in April and in the US last September. Its list price in the UK is £2,703 for a 30-day pack of capsules, but the agreed reduction is confidential.
In a statement, NICE said Pfizer’s “responsible pricing” had allowed its appraisal committee to reconsider its initial decision.
Both Vizimpro and Tagrisso were turned down by the agency in April after an initial assessment, with the committee deciding neither drug offered enough extra benefit to patients when compared with existing treatments to be value for money.
“Our committee acknowledged that dacomitinib had the potential to extend life for people with this type of lung cancer more than existing treatments currently available on the NHS,” said Meindert Boysen, director of the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation at NICE.
Company estimates are that around 1,477 people in England will be eligible for treatment with Vizimpro every year, according to the agency.
Health services in Wales and Northern Ireland usually follow NICE recommendations too, so the drug will likely be available there as well, according to Cancer Research UK.
The charity welcomed the green light for Vizimpro but said the Tagrisso decision was “disappointing”, particularly as AZ’s drug seems to offer some efficacy advantages and fewer side effects.
For now, the decision puts Pfizer UK in the driving seat for first-line EGFR-positive NSCLC therapy in England.
The company’s oncology director, Olivia Ashman, said: “Lung cancer remains a challenging condition to treat and we are pleased that clinicians managing patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC will now have access to this important medicine.”
NICE has already recommended three other EGFR inhibitors for previously-untreated EGFR-positive NSCLC, including AZ’s Iressa, Boehringer Ingelheim’s Giotrif and Roche’s Tarceva, although these are considered less effective than the newer agents.
The agency’s guidance says people who took Vizimpro had longer overall survival rates than those who took Iressa – 34.1 months compared with 26.8 months – and Pfizer’s drug also increased the length of time before the disease worsened by around five months.
Vizimpro had a higher incidence of side effects than Iressa, however, so a lower dose may be needed, according to NICE.

Economic cost of cancer in U.S. tops $94 billion annually: study

State-by-state variations in cancer deaths suggest effective cancer prevention and treatment could yield economic benefits.
A new study published in JAMA Oncology estimates individuals between the ages of 16 and 84 who died of cancer in the United States in 2015 alone account for over $94 billion in lost earnings. This type of information offers policymakers another way of quantifying the burden of cancer, according to the study’s senior author, Robin Yabroff, Ph.D., senior scientific director of health services research with the American Cancer Society.
“Looking at the number of years that are lost due to premature cancer death gives you a different type of information than just looking at newly diagnosed patients—you’re really getting a sense of what would have happened in the absence of those deaths,” she told FierceHealthcare.
The study also took a more granular look at the data than most previous approaches, allowing researchers to estimate lost earnings both by type of cancer and at a state-by-state level. Lung cancer accounted for the highest number of lost wages at $21.3 billion, or 22.5% of all cases. Among the states, Utah’s $19.6 million in lost wages was the lowest in the country, while Kentucky had the highest losses of $35.3 million.
The differences in lost wages from state to state surprised Yabroff. “I had known that there are differences in mortality rates by state—you do see higher cancer mortality rates in many southern states than you do in other states—but I really thought the magnitude of the differences between states, for example Utah to Kentucky or Missisippi had really big differences in lost earnings.”
A variety of factors likely accounts for the difference in the economic impact of early cancer deaths from state to state, but that doesn’t mean states lack effective means to address the problem. In fact, many of the state-level policies that Yabroff recommends to address cancer risk factors, such as reducing smoking and countering obesity, offer additional benefits as they relate to population health beyond cancer treatment.
Connecting cancer to its economic consequences could also help policymakers better understand the relevance of existing policies that have demonstrated positive results. “There are a number of studies that we’ve conducted evaluating the effects of Medicaid expansion where we’ve found higher prevalence of screening, earlier diagnosis, and reductions in disparities in health insurance coverage,” Yabroff said.

Using the current study’s data as a benchmark could also help to guide future policy decisions. However, Yabroff warns that there could be a gap between the implementation of new policies and a reduction in state-by-state disparities in economic impact because prevention, screening and treatment can take place long before a patient succumbs to cancer prematurely. In essence, that could mean the current disparities have yet to fully reflect state-level policies related to access to care and improved screening. For example, most of the states that have adopted Medicaid expansion did so in 2014 and 2015, so any potential improvement caused by cancer screening would likely show up in future studies.
And while Utah may have the lowest loss of wages relative to other states, Yabroff said it still has opportunities to reduce cancer risk factors by improving screening, access to care and treatment.
“We don’t know how to prevent all cancers, but there are some where we have a sense of what to do, like reducing smoking, improving physical activity and reducing obesity. Those things are definitely associated with increased risk of cancer,” she said.

How Team Trump is keeping drug prices down

At some point, almost all Americans have been stuck with massive, unexpected medical bills or forced to make health decisions without real information or anyone to guide them. We have worked at the highest levels of US health care for years, yet it has happened to both of us.
It’s one reason why President Trump signed an executive order last week to help you easily find the typical price — and what you would actually owe — for major health services before you have to purchase them.
This step is part of a number of efforts underway, across the administration, to fix the problems in American health care, while preserving what works and what Americans like about the system. Most Americans, especially the 240 million on Medicare or employer insurance, like what they have but are concerned about the flaws in the system. Too many fear that they are one bit of bad luck away from crippling medical bills.
The president understands this, which is why he vowed to build on what works and continue fighting to deliver the affordability you need, the options and control you want and the quality you deserve.
What does following through look like? First, the president has been clear: Americans need affordable health care. Patients deserve a backstop against high medical costs, and the government takeover of individual insurance over the past decade has failed to deliver that peace of mind.
The Trump administration has opened new insurance options for American small employers and workers both inside and outside of the individual insurance market, and we continue to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.
Last week, we finalized a new way for Americans to use tax-free contributions from their employer to purchase insurance of their choosing. The president’s executive order will also open up new access to health-savings accounts, which can protect Americans from high medical bills.
We also need to address unaffordable prices in health care. There is already evidence that significant savings can be generated just by giving patients the tools to know prices and shop among providers, which is what the president’s executive order will deliver. Americans should also be allowed to receive more services from lower-priced providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants.
The cost of prescription drugs also must keep coming down. The Trump administration has set ­records for approvals of low-cost generic drugs, saving patients $26 billion in just the first year and a half of the president’s term. We have also proposed that backdoor rebates in Medicare Part D, which amounted to $29 billion last year, be delivered directly as discounts to patients at the pharmacy counter — as soon as Jan. 1, 2020.
Second, American patients deserve to be in control, not left at the mercy of a shadowy system. That is the goal of the president’s new executive order: to bring you the pricing information you need to find the right options for you. The president has already ensured you have a right to find out the best possible price for medications from your pharmacist and required drug companies to put their prices in TV ads.
We are also working to give ­patients control over their own health information, allowing them seamless access to their health data through private-sector apps.
Third, we are going to deliver the quality patients deserve. High-quality care means not just cutting-edge treatments but also care that keeps you healthy, rather than only helping when you’re sick.
We launched a major initiative that could connect 10 million or more Medicare beneficiaries to a primary-care provider who will be accountable to them — and paid more when patients stay healthy. The president’s executive order aims to simplify health care quality measures collected by the federal government, so your doctor can focus on keeping you healthy, rather than filling out paperwork.
Putting you in control and providing you with real certainty is a stark contrast to recent proposals for a government takeover of our entire health care system. That leap would leave behind what so many Americans know and like about our system.
President Trump has promised a better vision: a health care system that treats you like a person, not a number. He wants to hold providers and Big Pharma accountable to transparency and reasonable prices. We are working every day to protect American patients and deliver on the president’s vision.
Alex Azar II is the US secretary of health and human services. Joe Grogan is director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House.

Trump threatens to upend California’s health care plan for undocumented

President Donald Trump blasted Democrats who want to fund health care for undocumented immigrants and criticized California for expanding health coverage to some adults living in the state illegally.
“You look at what they’re doing in California, how they’re treating people. They don’t treat their people as well as they treat illegal immigrants,” the Republican president told reporters in the White House on Monday. “It’s very unfair to our citizens and we’re going to stop it, but we may need an election to stop it.”
Trump did not elaborate about how he intends to stop California from expanding health care options for undocumented immigrants.
The $214.8 billion state budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last week makes California the first state to allow undocumented adults to sign up for state-funded health coverage. Many of the Democrats running for president say their health care plans would cover immigrants living in the country illegally.
Starting Jan. 1 2020, California will allow undocumented immigrants under age 26 to enroll in the state’s Medi-Cal program, the state’s health coverage for low-income residents. American citizens were already eligible to sign up for the program, which covers about a third of California residents.
The expansion will cost California $98 million in the upcoming fiscal year.
At a news conference Monday celebrating his first state budget, Newsom, a Democrat, joked about the controversy the Medi-Cal expansion is generating with conservatives.
“To my friends at Fox News, I know we’re keeping you in business,” he said.
He promised to continue expanding health coverage to more undocumented people in future years.
“Universal health care is a right regardless of immigration status,” Newsom said. “I’m going to get the rest of that done, mark my words, and make progress next year and the year after that.”

Healthcare employment by state

West Virginia has the highest healthcare employment as a percent of total employment among the 50 U.S. states, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The May 2018 data, as compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation, provides employment estimates in each state. Healthcare employment included ambulatory healthcare services, hospitals and nursing and residential care facilities.
Healthcare employment as a percent of total employment in each state and Washington, D.C.:
Alabama: 12 percent
Alaska: 12 percent
Arizona: 11 percent
Arkansas: 12 percent
California: 10 percent
Colorado: 10 percent
Connecticut: 13 percent
Delaware: 13 percent
District of Columbia: 8 percent
Florida: 12 percent
Georgia: 10 percent
Hawaii: 9 percent
Idaho: 12 percent
Illinois: 11 percent
Indiana: 12 percent
Iowa: 12 percent
Kansas: 11 percent
Kentucky: 12 percent
Louisiana: 13 percent
Maine: 14 percent
Maryland: 12 percent
Massachusetts: 14 percent
Michigan: 13 percent
Minnesota: 13 percent
Mississippi: 12 percent
Missouri: 12 percent
Montana: 13 percent
Nebraska: 11 percent
Nevada: 8 percent
New Hampshire: 12 percent
New Jersey: 12 percent
New Mexico: 12 percent
New York: 13 percent
North Carolina: 12 percent
North Dakota: 12 percent
Ohio: 13 percent
Oklahoma: 11 percent
Oregon: 11 percent
Pennsylvania: 14 percent
Rhode Island: 14 percent
South Carolina: 11 percent
South Dakota: 13 percent
Tennessee: 12 percent
Texas: 11 percent
Utah: 10 percent
Vermont: 13 percent
Virginia: 10 percent
Washington: 10 percent
West Virginia: 15 percent
Wisconsin: 11 percent
Wyoming: 9 percent