Search This Blog

Monday, June 14, 2021

IMBRUVICA-VENCLEXTA Combo Shows Survival in First-line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Phase 3

 

  • All-oral, once-daily, chemotherapy-free, fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax (I+V) combination met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review committee (IRC); I+V reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 78% compared to chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (C+O)
  • The safety profile of I+V was generally consistent with the safety profile of the single agents, and tolerability profiles were consistent with CLL treatment in the enrolled patient population
  • Data presented during the late-breaking abstract session at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Virtual Congress (Abstract #LB1902)

AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV) announced new data from the Phase 3 GLOW study comparing the efficacy and safety of the combination of IMBRUVICA® (ibrutinib) plus VENCLEXTA®/VENCLYXTO® (venetoclax) (I+V) versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (C+O) for first-line treatment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had active disease requiring treatment per the International Workshop on CLL (iwCLL) criteria. The study met its primary endpoint of superior progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) with a HR 0.216 (95% CI, 0.131-0.357; p < 0.0001), demonstrating a reduction in the risk of disease progression or death for I+V of approximately 78% compared to C+O. I+V is the first all-oral, once-daily, chemotherapy-free, fixed-duration investigational combination. Results of the study presented at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Virtual Congress (Abstract #LB1902) during late-breaking abstract session on June 12 from 4:00-5:30 p.m. CEST.

https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/imbruvica-ibrutinib-plus-venclexta-venclyxto-venetoclax-combination-shows-superior-progression-free-survival-compared-to-chlorambucil-plus-obinutuzumab-in-first-line-chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia-cll-phase-3-glow-study/

Janssen: Phase 3 Study Shows Survival Benefits with DARZALEX® in Multiple Myeloma

 After nearly five years of follow-up, median progression-free survival was not reached, and a significant overall survival benefit was observed; dat presented as a late-breaking abstract at the European Hematology Association (EHA) Virtual Congress

The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson announced overall survival (OS) results from the Phase 3 MAIA (NCT02252172) study showing the addition of DARZALEX® (daratumumab) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) resulted in a statistically significant survival benefit over lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who were ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and were treated to progression.1 These data were featured in the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2021 Virtual Press Briefing and will be presented as a late-breaking abstract during the EHA Virtual Congress (Abstract #LB1901).

The prespecified interim analysis for OS found that after a median follow-up of nearly five years (56.2 months), a 32 percent reduction in the risk of death was observed in the D-Rd treatment arm vs. Rd arm.1 Median OS was not reached in either arm [hazard ratio (HR): 0.68, 95 percent confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.86; p=0.0013].1 Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached after nearly five years and the PFS benefit observed with D-Rd was maintained, with a 47 percent reduction in risk of disease progression or death [HR: 0.53; 95 percent CI, 0.43-0.66; p<0.0001].1 These data are expected to form the basis of future regulatory submissions.

https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/janssen-announces-results-from-phase-3-maia-study-showing-significant-overall-survival-benefits-for-treatment-with-darzalex-daratumumab-in-patients-with-newly-diagnosed-multiple-myeloma-who-are-transplant-ineligible/

Sunday, June 13, 2021

UnitedHealthcare delays ER coverage policy amid provider backlash

 Amid significant backlash from providers, UnitedHealthcare is delaying its new emergency department coverage policy, which would allow the insurer to retroactively deny ED claims it determines are nonemergent.

The policy was set to take effect July 1 in fully insured commercial plans. A spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare said in a statement to Fierce Healthcare that the policy will be pushed back until at least the end of the national public health emergency period for COVID-19.

When that window will close is unclear, though most experts expect the public health emergency to last at least through the end of 2021.

"Based on feedback from our provider partners and discussions with medical societies, we have decided to delay the implementation of our emergency department policy until at least the end of the national public health emergency period," the spokesperson said. "We will use this time to continue to educate consumers, customers and providers on the new policy and help ensure that people visit an appropriate site of service for non-emergency care needs."


The news was first reported by The New York Times.

Provider groups including the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) slammed the country's largest commercial insurer, especially for the timing of the announcement, which comes as the U.S. is still emerging from a pandemic that significantly decreased patient volumes.

In a statement, ACEP said it and other provider organizations have urged patients who may be experiencing high-risk symptoms to seek out emergency care amid the pandemic to avoid a potentially dangerous situation such as a heart attack out of fear of COVID-19.

“Over the past year, we’ve seen the devastating impact of when patients avoid treatment—including worsening health conditions and even death. This new policy will leave millions fearful of seeking medical care, just as we’re getting hold of the COVID-19 pandemic and trying to get as many people vaccinated as possible,” said Mark Rosenberg, president of ACEP.

UnitedHealthcare said the goal of the policy was to avoid high, unnecessary emergency room costs and instead encourage patients to seek care at other sites, such as urgent care. If a claim was deemed nonemergent, the provider would be able to sign an attestation to reverse the decision.

If the attestation was submitted within the allotted time frame, UnitedHealthcare said it would cover the visit under the member's emergency care benefit.

In a statement Thursday, AHA reiterated its call for UnitedHealth to fully nix the policy.

"If enacted, this policy would have a chilling effect on patients seeking emergency services, with potentially dire consequences for their health," the group said. "It is also part of an unfortunate pattern of commercial health insurers denying care for needed services. Patients should have the confidence to seek the emergency care they need without worrying about coverage being denied."

"There is no justification for these restrictions now or after the public health emergency," AHA said.

Anthem took heat for a similar policy it unveiled in 2017, with ACEP filing suit against the insurer over it.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/unitedhealthcare-delays-er-coverage-policy-amid-provider-backlash

HHS gives providers flexibility on spending COVID-19 relief funds

 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) left intact a June 30 deadline for providers to use COVID-19 relief funds they accrued from April 10 through June 30 of 2020 after a major push from hospital groups asking for more time.

But the agency did give more flexibility for providers to spend funding if they got it after June 30, 2020.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) released revised reporting requirements Friday for the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), which helped providers offset major revenue shortfalls that emerged due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“These updated requirements reflect our focus on giving providers equitable amounts of time for use of these funds, maintaining effective safeguards for taxpayer dollars, and incorporating feedback from providers requesting more flexibility and clarity about PRF reporting,” said HRSA acting Administrator Diana Espinosa in a statement.

The agency set up new deadlines for when providers must use funding based on when they got it, rather than the June 30 deadline for all payments to be expended.

Any money a provider received from July 1 through Dec. 31, 2020, must be expended by Dec. 31, 2021.

Providers that got money from Jan. 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021, have until June 30 of next year to fully use it. Any funding received from July 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2021, has to be spent by Dec. 31, 2022, according to HRSA.


The agency made several other key updates to the reporting requirements for the funding, including requiring that nursing homes now report information to HRSA on how they are using the money.

Recipients are also now required to report for each payment received period where they got one or more payments exceeding $10,000. This is a change from $10,000 cumulatively across all PRF payments, HRSA said.

The agency added that reporting requirements don’t apply to the Rural Health Clinic COVID-19 Testing Program nor the HRSA uninsured program or COVID-19 coverage assistance funds.

A reporting portal will be open to providers to submit information starting July 1.

The new reporting requirements come a few days after HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra told a congressional panel that the agency wanted more transparency and accountability in how the taxpayer dollars were used.

The PRF played a major part in stabilizing hospitals and practices that saw revenue plummet at the onset of the pandemic as doctors' offices were forced to close and hospitals shut down or postponed elective procedures.

The CARES Act included $178 billion for the relief fund, and the majority of the fund has been distributed except for roughly $24 billion. Hospital groups have warned that providers need more time to use the funding as they are still suffering the financial consequences from the pandemic, including lower patient volumes.

The American Hospital Association cheered the new guidance that will help "ensure that hospitals and health systems can continue the battle against COVID-19 as cases persist," according to a statement.

The relief fund gave out money to all types of providers but also had targeted distributions to rural and safety net providers as well as to COVID-19 hot spots.

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hhs-gives-providers-flexibility-spending-covid-19-relief-funds-updates-reporting

Biotech week ahead, June 14

 Biotech stocks extended their gains in the week ended June 11, supported by the broader market strength and some stock-specific moves.

The biggest biotech news of the week came in the form of approval for Biogen Inc.'s BIIB 4.36% Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm. The approval polarized the scientific community. The stock, which at one point tacked on about 64% on the day of the approval, ended the week up about 40%.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'sALXN 0.19% Ultomiris received label expansion to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria in children and adolescents.

Among other approvals that came through during the week were label expansion for Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated's 

VRTX 10.96% triple combo cystic fibrosis drug Trikafta and Pfizer Inc.'s PFE 1.38% 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine.

Vertex, however, had a mixed week, as it announced the shelving of a mid-stage study of a drug for a rare, inherited lung disease.

The week also saw a slew of presentations at multiple scientific meetings. The ASCO 2021 that kickstarted on June 4 ended in the first half of the week, and the European Hematology Association Congress commenced in the later half of the week.

Danish biotech Orphazyme A/S ORPH 55.57% and Galecto, Inc. GLTO 29.87% had a volatile ride this week amid a lack of any news specific to the companies.

Here are the key catalysts for the unfolding week:

Health Care Conferences

  • BIO Digital 2021: June 14-18
  • The BofA Securities 2021 Napa Biopharma Virtual Conference: June 14-16
  • Citi European Healthcare Day: June 15-16
  • The JMP Securities Life Sciences Conference: June 16-17
  • J.P. Morgan European Healthcare Conference: June 17
  • Alliance Global Partners Healthcare Symposium Virtual: June 17
  • H.C. Wainwright Psychedelics in Psychiatry and Beyond Virtual Conference: June 17


PDUFA Dates

The FDA is likely to announce by Tuesday, June 15 its decision on Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited's TAK 0.85% new drug application for TAK-721 as a treatment option for eosinophilic esophagitis.

Blueprint Medicines Corporation BPMC 3.32% has a decision date of Wednesday, June 16 for its supplemental NDA for Ayvakit as a treatment option for advanced systemic mastocytosis.

The FDA is scheduled to rule on Orphazyme's NDA for Arimocolmol for the treatment of Niemann-Pick Disease Type C, a rare, progressive, neurodegenerative disease.

The PDUFA date has been set for Thursday, June 17. Arimocolmol was developed by CytRx Corporation CYTR 858.06% and has been licensed to Orphazyme.

Eton Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ETON 5.76% has a decision-by date of Friday, June 18 for its NDA for its ready-to-use ephedrine injection to treat low blood pressure.

Earnings

Centogene N.V. CNTG 1.21% (Wednesday)

IPOs

IPO Pricing & Listing

Atai Life Sciences B.V., a clinical-stage biopharma developing treatments for mental health disorders, has commenced a proposed underwritten initial public offering of 14.286 million shares of its common shares. All common shares to be sold in the proposed offering will be sold by Atai.
The IPO price is expected to be between $13 and $15 per common share. The German pyschedelics company has applied to list its common shares on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "ATAI."

South San Francisco, California-based Lyell Immunopharma, Inc. has filed for offering 25 million shares of its common stock in an IPO. The oncology-focused company that uses T cells to cure solid tumors, expects to price the offering between $16 and $18. It has applied to list its shares on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "LYEL."

Swiss biopharma Molecular Partners AG proposes to offer 3 million ADSs in an IPO, with each ADS representing the right to receive one common share. The company has given an indicative price of $27.14 per ADS, going by the 24.40 Swiss-franc-per-share price at which its Swiss exchange listed shares closed June 8. The biopharma that focuses on infectious disease, oncology and ophthalmology, has applied to list its ADSs on the Nasdaq under the symbol "MOLN."

Unicycive, a Los Altos, California-based biopharma that focuses on treatment of kidney diseases, has filed to offer $2.635 million shares at an estimated price range of $8.50-$1.50. The company has applied for listing its shares on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "UNCY."

https://www.benzinga.com/general/biotech/21/06/21533636/the-week-ahead-in-biotech-takeda-blueprint-medicines-orphazyme-eton-on-the-radar-ahead-of-fda-dec

FDA Advisors Uncertain on EUA Pathway for Younger Kids' COVID Shots

 An FDA vaccine advisory committee was torn on whether emergency use authorization (EUA) was the right step for COVID-19 vaccines in younger children, but there was broad agreement that key safety concerns will have to be worked out on the market.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met Thursday via videoconferencing to discuss, but not vote, on the evidence that would be required for the population ages 6 months to 17 years.

"We're hearing we need the vaccines soon in children, because we do not know what the virus will be doing in the fall when kids are back in schools and people are indoors," summarized Marion Gruber, PhD, director of the FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review, toward the end of the full-day session. "We are in the very difficult position at FDA to really weigh that availability with the desire to do clinical trials in thousands of pediatrics subjects."

Pfizer already obtained an EUA down to age 12 years for its vaccine, and Moderna filed Thursday for EUA in those ages 12 to 17 as well, citing positive TeenCOVE trial data.

Children 12 and up are much more like their older counterparts in immunogenicity. But the considerations are "more complex" for younger children, noted Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the clinical side of the FDA's Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, in presenting to the panel.

He presented a plan to allow manufacturers to continue using so-called immunobridging trials, which just have to prove that the vaccines are at least as good at generating immunity markers as they are in younger adults without formal hypothesis testing of clinical disease prevention.

For licensure, at least 1,000 vaccine recipients in each younger age group (6 months to 1 year, 2 to 5 years, and 6 to 11 years) would need to be studied in a safety database with median 6 month follow-up. For EUA, it would just depend on how the epidemiology curves are looking, potential benefit, and potential risk, said Fink.

"A conclusion of clear and compelling safety and effectiveness to support emergency use authorization and, indeed, the need for emergency use authorization may be less certain for younger pediatric age groups than for adolescents and adults," he said.

How Much Benefit

Children are susceptible to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and can transmit it, although they less often seek testing or develop severe disease compared with adults, noted Hannah Kirking, MD, an epidemiologist with the FDA's Respiratory Viruses Branch and a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Public Health Service.

She pointed to new CDC data showing teens' hospitalization rates spiked early this year, with a peak of 2.1 per 100,000 in youths ages 12 to 17, and that one-third of those hospitalized needed ICU care.

And the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) has consistently trailed behind the adult epidemiologic curves, tallying up some 4,000 cases over the last year, she noted.

However, the epidemiologic curve has shifted downward dramatically in the last month or so, argued panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. "I very strongly believe we need a vaccine for adolescents and children. But I want to be sure that the risk of the vaccine is less than the risk of hospitalization, because four per million certainly does not constitute an emergency."

He argued for a full biologics license application instead of EUA for children.

What the virus will do in the future, though, "is the million dollar question," responded Kirking. With more transmissible variants and many children headed back to in-person schooling in the fall, there's no guarantee that case counts will remain as low as they are now, she cautioned.

The risks to children from COVID-19 are far larger than many of the other viral diseases for which Americans routinely vaccinate children, added panelist Eric Rubin, MD, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"We still vaccinate children in this country for polio every year, even though we haven't had a case of polio since the 1970s," agreed Paul Offit, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

With much of the globe still unvaccinated, "we're going to have to have a highly vaccinated or highly immune population for years, if not decades," he said. "It just seems silly to think we don't have to have children as part of that since they can suffer and be hospitalized and occasionally die from this virus."

It's better to have a tool in the arsenal that doesn't end up being needed than not to have it if it is needed sooner than the licensure process would allow, Rubin argued.

How Much Safety Risk

Myocarditis and pericarditis loomed large for the panel. The CDC warned in early June that it has been getting increasing reports of these events after vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA-based vaccines, particularly in young males.

While cardiac MRI is very sensitive and it doesn't take much of an insult to get a positive scan, Meissner argued, the long-term consequences are unknown. "Will there be scarring? Will there be a predisposition to arrhythmias later on? Will there be an early onset of heart failure? I think it's unlikely, but we don't know that. Before we start vaccinating millions of adolescents and children, it is so important to figure out what the consequences are."

On the other hand, it's not even clear yet that this is a causal association, Rubin cautioned. Also, "we're not going in with a blank slate with a new vaccine to kids. We're going in with a gigantic base of experience now in adults." While that data has suggested rare side effects, it hasn't shown worrisome common side effects, he pointed out.

Most panelists argued that longer follow-up wouldn't really provide better answers on infrequent events, although there were dissenters who thought a minimum of 6 months or 1 year of data would be best to catch longer-term risks and provide more confidence for the public.

Most also agreed that trials with around 1,500 children, perhaps more heavily weighted toward the younger age strata, would be sufficient. Even doubling the number wouldn't catch rare events. For that, it's going to be all about post-marketing surveillance and watching what happens in longer follow-up coming in from the trials and real-world use in the older teens and young adults.

"The concerns we're talking about now manifest in the fairly short-term after vaccination," noted Fink, pointing out the need to carefully weigh what additional information would be gained against the harms of unnecessarily delaying access. "We have to be realistic."

There are robust near real-time surveillance systems in place for post-marketing safety evaluation, FDA presenters noted, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Active monitoring from the FDA BEST system via claims and electronic health records from major nationwide partners also includes millions of children.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet June 18 to consider updated data on myocarditis and assess vaccine risks and benefits in adolescents and young adults.

Moderna has the KidCOVE trial underway testing its vaccine in children ages 6 months to 11 years. It told CNN that data on those as young as 5 years should be available by September or October. Pfizer's combination dose-ranging to phase III trial has also dosed its first participants in the 6-month to 11-year age range.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/93050

Virtual Primary Care: New House Call

 For three out of five consumers who experienced a virtual visit last year, COVID-19 prompted their first foray into telehealth, according to a recent survey. But while urgent care was once the biggest draw for telehealth consumption, that trend flipped during the pandemic, when scheduled visits—especially with specialty and primary care physicians—took center stage.

Now, as healthcare leaders consider where and how to embed telehealth into their member or patient experience for the long haul, it’s critical to examine how virtual care can lead to better health outcomes.

The following use cases provide insight into why virtual primary care (VPC) is quickly becoming the new house call and what it takes to provide optimal value with a VPC program from a physician’s perspective.

Case Number 1: Jumpstarting A Relationship With a Primary Care Provider

Lisa*, 26, a newly diagnosed, insulin-dependent person with diabetes, recently moved to the East Coast. She graduated law school, started a job, and acquired new insurance, yet she did not have a primary care physician in her newly established community. When it came time to refill her medication, Lisa chose telehealth for its convenience—as an attorney, she works 65 to 70 hours a week—and to establish a new relationship with a primary care provider.

It quickly became clear that Lisa’s health needs went beyond the request for a prescription refill. Lisa had not been seen by a clinician in six months, and her blood sugar levels had skyrocketed to 250, even while taking medication. Because of her struggles with keeping her diabetes under control, Lisa showed signs of retinal inflammation, a condition that is typically accompanied by kidney damage and, if left unchecked, could quadruple her risk of heart disease and triple her risk of stroke.

Lisa’s virtual primary care provider assessed her condition with the help of a home glucometer, digital blood pressure cuff, and a scale. She also used video to examine Lisa’s overall physical condition, looked for swelling in Lisa’s feet and ankles and worked with Lisa to determine whether she had lost any sensation in her feet. With these tools, Lisa’s virtual primary care provider could perform 90% of the exam that otherwise would have been conducted in person.

The virtual primary care provider adjusted Lisa’s medication and ordered laboratory tests to dig deeper. She also referred Lisa to an ophthalmologist for a retinal screening and to a diabetes educator and an endocrinologist. When Lisa expressed concern regarding how she would find an ophthalmologist in a new city, her virtual primary care physician worked with her to find a close-to-home option and sent an electronic referral. Today, Lisa’s blood sugar levels are at non-diabetic levels, the strain on her retina and kidneys has been resolved, she’s exercising regularly, and she feels great.

Key to success: digital reminders for follow-up care. So many patients with chronic disease become lost in the follow-up process, primarily due to difficulties in accessing care. While telehealth helps eliminate access-to-care challenges, digital reminders ensure that patients stay on top of follow-up appointments.

Case Number 2: Providing More Personalized Care Intervention.

Gerald*, 54, suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after a long history of smoking. He had recently changed insurance and did not have a primary care provider. He was also afraid to leave his house to receive in-person care, given his increased risk for developing a severe case of COVID-19. When Gerald learned that his health plan offered virtual primary care visits, he sought treatment for an increasingly productive cough.

It did not take long for the virtual primary care physician to discover that Gerald faced significant challenges controlling his COPD. Gerald used his steroid inhaler at twice the maximum dose to help with his cough, and he relied on his rescue nebulizer every four hours. His overuse of these medications was causing heart palpitations—a concern if left unchecked.

Often, patients with chronic disease purchase personal biometric monitors to keep track of their vital signs at home, so Gerald’s physician incorporated tools such as a pulse oximeter into his exam. She could also tell by listening to Gerald’s cough that he was wheezing. She prescribed medications that would help Gerald with his breathing and help prevent pneumonia from mucus buildup. She also changed the type of medication Gerald used in his inhaler to decrease the impact on his heart. Today, Gerald not only feels much better, but he’s also reduced his risk of heart failure, stroke and other complications, while avoiding having to seek care in the hospital.

Key to success: getting a glimpse into a patient’s home life.One of the benefits of meeting with Gerald via video is that the virtual physician could ask Gerald to demonstrate how he used his inhaler and could take a look at Gerald’s nebulizer machine. The physician discovered that Gerald used his inhaler incorrectly, while the tubing on the nebulizer machine, which was 10 years old, was cracked. Gerald’s physician taught him a better technique for using his inhaler during that first video session and ordered new tubing for his machine—small changes that ensured he would receive the full benefit of his medications.

Case Number 3: Closing gaps in care.

It’s important to note that patients do not need to have chronic health problems to benefit from virtual primary care. The experience of Isabella*, 34, is one example. Isabella chose virtual primary care for a mild residual cough that she developed after recovering from COVID-19.

Prior to her virtual primary care appointment, Isabella hadn’t seen a primary care physician in three years. A close look at her medical history indicated that Isabella underwent a pap smear a few years earlier that came back with mildly abnormal results, but Isabella never scheduled a follow-up appointmentThe primary care provider discussed the need for further testing with Isabella and connected her with an OB/GYN who could meet Isabella’s needs.

Key to success: paying attention to patients’ care needs beyond the stated reason for the visit. In Isabella’s case, the convenience of telehealth prompted her to schedule a virtual primary care visit, but the careful eye of her virtual provider enabled Isabella to avoid delayed care, reducing the potential for worrisome health risks. This approach also can help to improve Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure performance.

Transforming At-Home Care

COVID-19 demanded that providers find creative ways to safely interact with patients, catapulting telehealth into the mainstream. As leaders continue to look for ways to leverage telehealth to provide affordable, evidence-based care that result in better outcomes, virtual primary care should be a top-of-mind consideration in 2021 and beyond.

Author Information

Cynthia Horner, MD, is the medical director for Amwell and has been a board-certified family physician for 25 years. She has conducted more than 22,000 telehealth visits, having served as a full-time telehealth provider since 2016.

https://www.chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/is-virtual-primary-care-the-new-house-call-three-real-world-examples