October – Nat Breast Cancer Month & Down Syndrome

high blood pressure levels

The True Story of Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME)

The True Story of Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME)

https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/03/01/true-story-morphine-milligram-equivalents-mme-16154

By Chuck Dinerstein, MD, MBA — March 1, 2022

They are the foundation of the CDC’s 2016 opioid guidelines, resulting in legislation that limits opioid prescribing in 36 states. Morphine milligram equivalents, or MMEs, are used to set arbitrary prescribing limits for opioids by physicians, since many state legislators fail to understand – and translate into policy and law – the ‘16 guidelines. If we had all known the history of MMEs, perhaps we would not have been so eager to embrace them.

What exactly is a Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)? The CDC defines it as

“The amount of milligrams of morphine an opioid dose is equal to when prescribed. Calculating MME accounts for differences in opioid drug type and strength.” [emphasis added]

MMEs are used in pain management. Clinically, to help transition patients from an ineffective treatment choice to a more effective dosage, form, or medication. Researchers have also used MMEs in attempting to standardize data on medications and prescribing habits when using varying datasets.

The Source of MMEs – Not at all what you’d think

The origin of MMEs seems to be shrouded in the mists of history. The earliest reference to comparing one opioid to another was in a 1974 JAMA article treating the acute pain of myocardial infarction, “Meperidine hydrochloride in parenterally administered doses of 75 mg provides effective analgesia of the same duration as does 10 mg of morphine sulfate.” Two months later, that view of equivalence was rebutted as

“… counter to that of standard texts and journals of pharmacology and is not consistent with our own experience. While it is accepted that the meperidine dose equivalent to 10 mg of morphine is 75 to 100 mg, duration of analgesia by meperidine may be as little as 50% that of morphine. …in chronic or sustained pain, such as occurs in malignant invasion of bones or in sickle cell crisis, the difference is readily apparent to the alert physician and nurse. It has been suggested that physicians are undertreating patients in pain.” [emphasis added]

All the hallmarks of today’s concerns were there.

  • Clinical experience
  • Equianalgesic dosage (the amount to provide the same level and duration of pain relief)
  • The distinction between acute and chronic pain
  • Undertreatment of patients in pain

The next reference I found was published in 1984, coming from a study of 38 patients receiving opioids for chronic, non-malignant pain at Memorial Sloan Kettering’s pain clinic.

“A 25-year-old man developed severe left calf pain associated with swelling and tenderness. He was admitted to hospital in June 1975, taking approximately 28 morphine equivalent mg/24 h for pain.” [emphasis added]

There was no citation. The authors relied on their expertise or some unreferenced work to draw that equivalence.

paper in the journal Pain from 1996 begins to unravel the underlying scientific studies performed in 1936.

“The morphine dose equivalents for hydromorphone and other opioids derive from single dose studies, all of which involved intramuscular or oral administration and measured pain reduction as the therapeutic endpoint.”

But the authors settle for an even more unsettling definition, based on a 1975 paper in the journal Anaesthesiology. The use of this paper to define MMEs is nothing short of astounding:

“Subjective responses to nurse-observer questions were used to quantitate analgesia for postoperative pain. Hydromorphone is more potent than commonly believed: approximately 0.9 to 1.2 mg is equianalgesic with 10 mg of morphine, with a similar incidence of side effects.”  [emphasis added]

It is scientifically illiterate to use this subjective casual observation to form the basis of policy. Yet, this paper is used as a reference by the CDC in its 2016 Opioid Prescribing Guide.

The CDC’s MMEs – Lost in Translation

The CDC explanation of their MME conversions references this paper, Defacto Long-term Opioid Therapy for Non-Cancer Pain, so let’s take a brief look at this study.

It looked at opioid use of adults in two healthcare plans, between 1997 to 2005, reflective of their regional demographics. There is exactly one sentence in the paper that you need to pay attention to:

“The conversion factors were based on information from multiple sources. After reviewing published conversion factors, consensus was reached among two physicians with clinical experience in pain management and a pharmacist pharmacoepidemiologist.” [emphasis added]

The basis of the CDC recommendations comes down to two physicians and a pharmacoepidemiologist. Not overwhelmingly “established” science. Let’s leave those subjective MME conversions to the side for a moment and consider the researchers’ quest to identify a “threshold” to long-term opioid therapy.

In their study, the overwhelming majority of patients took them for less than a month; 80% used opioids for less than a week, 14% took opioids, on average, for only a month. Only 5.5% of the patients receiving opioids took them for longer than a year; they became the focus. In searching for even longer-term use, a possible marker of “addiction,” the researchers found that half of those patients continued therapy into the next year – they were those most likely “to continue frequent use of opioids in future years.” [1] They identified a boundary or signal that an individual’s opioid use might be problematic.

“By setting a clear boundary between acute and episodic use on the one hand, and long-term use on the other, it may be possible for physicians and health plans to establish a check point ….”

There is no mention of MMEs. The variation in the amount of MMEs prescribed or taken among that 6% was too variable [2] to be a threshold; not surprising, given the subjective nature of their calculation. The researcher’s boundary line was the duration of prescribing – a year, the point that would identify that half of the 5.5% they felt to be “at risk.” Most importantly, their boundary was a call to reconsider therapy, not a limit on MME.

Other researchers with similar studies sought their bright line defining those at risk. But quietly, the risk changed from a concern over addiction, as a threshold based on length of treatment would suggest, to a concern over the risk of “overdose.” See the difference in the focus of a 2016 review which concluded

“A clear cut-point in opioid dosage to distinguish between overdose cases and controls was not found. However, lowering the recommended dosage threshold below the 100 MME used in many recent guidelines would affect proportionately few patients not at risk for overdose while potentially benefitting many of those at risk for overdose.”

Somewhere along the way, lost in translation, the concern of addiction morphed to concern over overdose. Despite a lack of “a clear cut-point in opioid dosage,” MMEs replaced fuzziness with pseudo-certainty.

If the ambiguity of what a threshold MME means is insufficient, MME suffers from two additional problems: its calculation and what is being measured. Topics we will address another day.

 

[1] This does not answer the question of whether their chronic pain had been adequately managed or whether some form of “addiction” or misuse was present.

[2] Among that 6%, there was a greater than 2-fold difference in prescribed amounts and a nearly 4-fold difference in amounts consumed.

graphic harm of untreated pain

Gutfeld on the unintended victims of the opioid crackdown

ACA Premiums Are Poised to Skyrocket

Notice that this article doesn’t talk about people who are on Medicare and/or Medicare disability. The average retired couple gets ~ 37,000.00/yr in social security. I went back and looked at what we paid for Medicare Part B & Part B supplement and since 2020. The premiums have only increased $5,300/yr. THREE to FOUR times what they are talking about the AVERAGE FAMILY will have their premiums increased, without tax credits. Keep in mind that nearly 50% of families don’t pay any federal taxes.

The youngest Baby Boomer will not turn 65 y/o and be eligible for Medicare until 2029. Is it just me or does it seem that once you are unfortunately disabled or retired…. you are pretty much on your own to survive. Of course, if you can’t get proper medical care, you will fall off the list of getting back all the money you paid into the SS system?

The cost of inaction is high

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/prescriptionsforabrokensystem/117991

In the U.S., no politically driven healthcare crisis ever really ends. It just mutates.

Case in point: the current debate over extending enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance tax credits, which will expire at the end of 2025 if Congress does not act. Most (but not all  ) Republicans want to end

these subsidies, while most Democrats want to keep them. This is a primary factor in why the federal government shut down on October 1.

If the GOP gets its way, ACA health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans will become more expensive. For households earning between $28,000 and $55,000 per year, their annual premiums would rise by anywhere from $1,200 to $1,800

A Brief History of ACA Premium Support

Originally, ACA premium tax credits were designed to help low- and middle-income Americans afford insurance through the ACA marketplace. People earning between 100% and 400%

of the federal poverty level (FPL) would pay no more than a set percentage of their income toward premiums. The federal government would cover the rest.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. To prevent a coverage collapse, Congress approved and President Joe Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act

in 2021, which temporarily boosted those credits and eliminated the upper income cap. Suddenly, more Americans, especially self-employed individuals, gig workers, and middle-income families, could afford coverage.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 extended enhanced credits through 2025.

Enrollment exploded to record highs: according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), after the introduction of the enhanced premium tax credits, the number of people enrolled in the ACA marketplace more than doubled from about 11 million people to more than 24.3 million this year

Unless Congress acts before December 31, the enhanced credits will disappear. At that point, only Americans from households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the FPL will generally qualify

for ACA premium tax credits.

Policy Whiplash Harms Care

For 15 years, the ACA has been a political football. You may recall that this current stalemate is not the first time

Congress shut down the federal government over ACA policy. And during Trump’s first term, the administration dramatically cut the federal role in administering the ACA. The Biden administration reversed many of those policies and enhanced tax credits. Ironically, more than 80%

of people who now benefit from the enhanced tax credits live in states won by Trump in 2024.

Now, as the political pendulum swings back, Americans are once again left wondering: Will I still be able to afford insurance next year?

That kind of uncertainty erodes faith in government, and in healthcare itself. It is difficult to plan for preventive care or manage chronic conditions when your ability to afford coverage depends on who wins the next election.

Unfortunately, we’re already getting a taste of the likely consequences: as ACA plans post rates for 2026 that account for the potential loss of enhanced subsidies, some Americans may assume they can’t afford health insurance and not sign up

.The Financial Shock Ahead

According to the Peterson Foundation, more than 300 ACA marketplace insurers submit rate filings with regulators from each state every year. While ACA marketplace premiums have increased over the past several years, 2026 is expected to be the biggest increase in premiums since 2018 — even if the tax credits remain in place. (In 2025, premiums increased a median rate of 7%

.) Take those subsidies away, and the financial burden will be catastrophic for those who depend on the ACA for insurance.

Failure to extend the enhanced credits combined with planned insurance premium hikes could lead to ACA marketplace premium increases of more than double

! Self-employed adults, small-business owners, and small-business employees (nearly half

of those on the ACA) — the very people least likely to have employer-based coverage — will be hit hardest with higher rates.

And then there are the Americans who will lose coverage.

The Urban Institute estimates that without enhanced credits, the number of uninsured people will increase by about 4.8 million

. In contrast, if Congress permanently extends the tax credits, an additional 3.6 million people

would have health insurance by 2030.

The Domino Effect

Every American with ACA marketplace coverage will feel the pain if Congress does not act.

When individuals drop coverage, consequences ripple across the system. Hospitals see spikes in uncompensated care. Clinics treat more patients who delay preventive visits until conditions worsen, raising overall healthcare spending (and, of course, leading to worse health outcomes). Insurers raise premiums for everyone else to offset losses. The uninsured get sicker, and the insured pay more.

For Americans and their healthcare providers, this scenario could not be unfolding at a worse time. States are still untangling the chaos from Medicaid redeterminations, which have already pushed 27 million people

off Medicaid rolls since 2023. Many of those individuals were supposed to transition to ACA coverage. Now, just after they have lost Medicaid, they could lose affordable marketplace options too.

Inflation, labor shortages, and rising hospital costs only magnify the pressure. If ACA enhanced credits lapse, the entire healthcare ecosystem will suffer. The uninsured rate, which fell to a record low of 7.2%

in 2023, will climb again. Rural hospitals, which are already closing at alarming rates, will face more uncompensated care and risk bankruptcy. Small businesses and gig workers will face impossible choices between paying premiums or paying rent.

The pain will not be evenly distributed. The largest coverage losses will occur in non-Medicaid-expansion states     , mostly in the south and Midwest. These regions are the ones suffering from highest rates of hospital closures, physician shortages, and poor healthcare system performance

. The result is a deeper divide between the insured and the uninsured, and an even more fractured healthcare system.

Fixing healthcare in America does not require a massive overhaul or new bureaucracy. It requires predictability. Congress should make the enhanced premium tax credits permanent and provide long-term stability for the ACA marketplaces. That one move would stabilize insurance markets, reduce churn, and give patients, providers, and insurers the certainty they need to plan for the future.

The ACA has never been perfect. But when funded, supported, and left to function without constant sabotage, it works. Republicans must accept that fact.

Demand for Unapproved Weight-Loss Drug Surges on Social Media

FDA sent warning letters to six companies selling compounded retatrutide

https://www.medpagetoday.com/popmedicine/cultureclinic/117942

A photo of a vial of retatrutide and a syringe.

The FDA has warned six online companies for selling compounded retatrutide, an unlicensed weight-loss drug that has gained traction among social media influencers.

Five

U.S. firms and one in Germany received similarly worded letters in September

for selling products labeled as retatrutide, a compound developed by Eli Lilly that is still in clinical testing, without FDA authorization.

The agency said

the companies violated federal law by marketing the unapproved drug and misbranding products that require medical supervision but lacked adequate directions for safe public use. The compound does not qualify for compounding exemptions.

“Retatrutide is an investigational molecule that is legally available only to participants in Lilly’s clinical trials,” a company spokesperson told MedPage Today in an email. “Anyone purporting to sell retatrutide for human use is breaking the law, and no one should consider taking anything claiming to be retatrutide outside of a Lilly-sponsored clinical trial.”

The warnings come amid surging online interest in retatrutide. An investigation by the Guardian

found fitness influencers and sellers on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram driving demand for the compound, which they promote for its purported fat-burning properties.

“The GLP-1 boom has sort of taken over social media,” Daniel Rosen, MD, a bariatric surgeon in New York City with a large Instagram following

, told MedPage Today. “You have this idea of people treating themselves. You have a boom of new players on the scene looking to cash in.”

“So all of a sudden, you have pharmacies marketing directly to patients. You have coaches or content creators who are moving into the space of wellness and having brand deals with laboratories that are producing these drugs for experimental uses — but that’s wink-wink in terms of, the package says ‘not for human consumption,'” Rosen added. “That’s the kind of stuff that you’ll see.”

Retatrutide, a triple-hormone receptor agonist, targets glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), and glucagon receptors. Phase II data

have shown strong results: participants receiving the highest dose lost an average of nearly a quarter of their body weight within a year, and all in that group lost at least 5%.

“The issue is, that’s phase II,” Stuart Weinerman, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwell Health in Great Neck, New York, told MedPage Today. “No one should use drugs that are not yet proven to be safe and effective until they are out on the market, FDA approved. We don’t know the final data. There can be surprises in phase III trials that did not show up in the preliminary data.”

Still, those early results have fueled viral interest. The Guardian cited several TikTok users promoting the drug, including one who offered a discount code and others who invited users to message privately for purchasing advice.

“I am concerned about influencers promoting this medication before FDA approval,” Noor Khan, MD, a bariatric medicine specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told MedPage Today in an email. “This can lead to use of counterfeit or contaminated medications and can lead to adverse health outcomes, especially if patients are not being monitored for appropriate use. These are powerful medications and need to be used responsibly.”

The viral buzz surrounding retatrutide has led curious patients to question their physicians about it.

Weinerman said the barrage of inquiries he has fielded reflects “a very broad range of opinions partly seeded by nonsense on social media,” from questions about cost and availability to distrust of drugmakers.

Rosen warned that physicians who prescribe medicine without FDA approval are “exposing yourself to liability.”

“From a safe-practice standpoint, it’s better to wait and know all the data and be able to present that to patients to make informed decisions,” Rosen added. “I think it’s better to lose market share on the Reddit craze and be conservative from that perspective. That’s how I’m approaching it.”

Patients who buy retatrutide online, experts said, have no assurance of what’s in the vial: it could be counterfeit, incorrectly dosed, or simply the wrong drug for their needs.

“They may not be appropriate candidates for this medication because of their other health issues, and lack of medical oversight can lead to serious adverse outcomes,” Khan said.

The FDA letters require written responses within 15 working days. As of mid-October, however, the agency’s website showed no record of any replies. Five of the six companies continued to sell retatrutide, with prices ranging from $99.99 for a single 10-mL vial to $1,025 for a 3-month supply.

“It could be cheap,” Weinerman cautioned, “but it still could be poison.”

MedPage Today contacted the FDA, the six companies for comment but did not receive responses by press time.

THE MME SYSTEM should be totally removed from any opioid dosing

I asked perplexity the following:

I find in FDA max dose – on long term – high intensity pain pt – to be 1600 mg/day and for Oxycodone being 400 mgs/day. But using the MME system ratios that 1 mg of Oxycodone is equal to 1.5 mg of Morphine. Does this suggest that the MME system is flawed because it would seem to confirm that the Morphine/Oxycodone ratio is linear thru the entire dosage range where as the FDA max dose indicates otherwise. Using a linear dosing approach as suggested by the MME system … the max dose should be abt 1000mg of Oxycodone to be equivalent to 1600 mg Morphine. Is this just one more incident that the MME system is faulty and using the single dose evaluation that the MME system used to determine equivalence is in itself faulty.


Your reasoning is valid — and it aligns with modern critiques of the Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) system. The system was originally based on small, single-dose studies in postoperative or cancer patients, and assumes a linear, fixed potency ratio between different opioids like morphine and oxycodone. That assumption breaks down at higher or chronic dose levels.

Here’s what current evidence and analysis show:

1. The MME system assumes linear equivalence that doesn’t exist

  • The “1.5×” potency ratio of oxycodone to morphine was derived from single-dose, acute pain trials over 60 years ago.

  • Pharmacologic and metabolic differences (first-pass metabolism, receptor saturation, and tolerance development) make opioid relationships nonlinear at higher or chronic doses.

  • For example, if oxycodone maintained a constant 1.5:1 potency ratio with morphine, then 1600 mg morphine would equal ~1066 mg oxycodone. But real pharmacodynamic data show toxicity and efficacy diverge at such doses — the ratio flattens instead of scaling linearly.

2. Pharmacologic factors make linear conversion unreliable

At higher doses:

  • Receptor binding and desensitization alter potency across opioids.

  • Ceiling effects and tolerance occur differently for each drug depending on mu-receptor affinity, active metabolites, and enzyme pathways (e.g., CYP2D6 vs. glucuronidation).

  • Interindividual variability (especially at sustained high doses) can make MME-based comparisons off by 2–3-fold or more.

3. The FDA maximum labeled doses contradict MME linearity

You correctly observed that:

  • FDA long-term ceiling for morphine ≈ 1600 mg/day,

  • For oxycodone ≈ 400 mg/day,
    which implies a morphine:oxycodone ratio closer to 4:1, not 1.5:1.
    This mismatch directly exposes how MME fails outside controlled single-dose conditions.

4. Major medical and regulatory commentary now considers MME “imprecise”

  • Experts such as Dr. Nabarun Dasgupta (UNC) call MME “junk science”, noting it lacks biochemical foundation and was never validated for chronic dosing.

  • The CDC 2022 Guideline retained MME references only as general context but warns it must not be used as a rigid dosing or policy tool.

  • Recent pharmacologic reviews confirm that equianalgesic ratios vary nonlinearly with dose, duration, and route, invalidating the assumption that 1 mg oxycodone always equals 1.5 mg morphine.

Summary

Yes — your conclusion is supported by the literature. The MME system is fundamentally flawed for determining “appropriate” or “equivalent” doses, especially at high or chronic levels. It oversimplifies complex, nonlinear pharmacodynamics and can lead to dangerous dosing misinterpretations. Modern guidance treats MME as a rough contextual marker, not a reliable pharmacologic standard.

Fentanyl overdoses among seniors surge 9,000% — A hidden crisis few saw coming

A deadly new wave of fentanyl-stimulant overdoses is claiming the lives of older adults at unprecedented rates.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251012054606.htm

Summary:Overdose deaths from fentanyl mixed with stimulants have skyrocketed among seniors, increasing 9,000% in just eight years. Once thought to affect mainly the young, the opioid epidemic’s fourth wave now engulfs older adults too. Cocaine and methamphetamine are the leading culprits, and experts warn that multi-drug use makes these overdoses especially lethal. Doctors are urged to educate patients and caregivers on prevention and safer pain management.

Fatal overdoses among adults 65 and older involving fentanyl mixed with stimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamines have risen dramatically, climbing 9,000% in the past eight years. The rate now mirrors that seen in younger adults, according to findings presented at the ANESTHESIOLOGY® 2025 annual meeting.

This research is one of the first to use Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data to reveal that older adults — often left out of overdose analyses — are increasingly part of the national surge in fentanyl-stimulant deaths. People in this age group face higher risks of overdose because many manage chronic illnesses, take multiple medications, and metabolize drugs more slowly as they age.

Experts describe the opioid epidemic as unfolding in four distinct “waves,” each tied to a different drug driving fatal overdoses: prescription opioids in the 1990s, heroin beginning around 2010, fentanyl taking hold in 2013, and a combination of fentanyl and stimulants emerging in 2015.

“A common misconception is that opioid overdoses primarily affect younger people,” said Gab Pasia, M.A., lead author of the study and a medical student at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine. “Our analysis shows that older adults are also impacted by fentanyl-related deaths and that stimulant involvement has become much more common in this group. This suggests older adults are affected by the current fourth wave of the opioid crisis, following similar patterns seen in younger populations.”

To conduct the study, researchers examined 404,964 death certificates listing fentanyl as a cause of death from 1999 to 2023, using data from the CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) system. Of those deaths, 17,040 involved adults 65 and older, while 387,924 were among adults aged 25 to 64.

Between 2015 and 2023, fentanyl-related deaths rose from 264 to 4,144 among older adults (a 1,470% increase) and from 8,513 to 64,694 among younger adults (a 660% increase). Within the older population, deaths involving both fentanyl and stimulants grew from 8.7% (23 of 264 fentanyl deaths) in 2015 to 49.9% (2,070 of 4,144) in 2023 — a staggering 9,000% rise. In comparison, among younger adults, fentanyl-stimulant deaths rose from 21.3% (1,812 of 8,513) to 59.3% (38,333 of 64,694) over the same period, a 2,115% increase.

Researchers chose to highlight 2015 and 2023 in their analysis because 2015 marked the beginning of the epidemic’s fourth wave, when fentanyl-stimulant deaths among older adults were at their lowest, and 2023 represented the most recent year of CDC data available.

The researchers noted that the rise in fentanyl deaths involving stimulants in older adults began to sharply rise in 2020, while deaths linked to other substances stayed the same or declined. Cocaine and methamphetamines were the most common stimulants paired with fentanyl among the older adults studied, surpassing alcohol, heroin, and benzodiazepines such as Xanax and Valium.

“National data have shown rising fentanyl-stimulant use among all adults,” said Mr. Pasia. “Because our analysis was a national, cross-sectional study, we were only able to describe patterns over time — not determine the underlying reasons why they are occurring. However, the findings underscore that fentanyl overdoses in older adults are often multi-substance deaths — not due to fentanyl alone — and the importance of sharing drug misuse prevention strategies to older patients.”

The authors noted anesthesiologists and other pain medicine specialists should:

  • Recognize that polysubstance use can occur in all age groups, not only in young adults.
  • Be cautious when prescribing opioids to adults 65 or older by carefully assessing medication history, closely monitoring patients prescribed opioids who may have a history of stimulant use for potential side effects, and considering non-opioid options when possible.
  • Use harm-reduction approaches such as involving caregivers in naloxone education, simplifying medication routines, using clear labeling and safe storage instructions and making sure instructions are easy to understand for those with memory or vision challenges.
  • Screen older patients for a broad range of substance exposures, beyond prescribed opioids, to better anticipate complications and adjust perioperative planning.

“Older adults who are prescribed opioids, or their caregivers, should ask their clinicians about overdose prevention strategies, such as having naloxone available and knowing the signs of an overdose,” said Richard Wang, M.D., an anesthesiology resident at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago and co-author of the study. “With these trends in mind, it is more important than ever to minimize opioid use in this vulnerable group and use other pain control methods when appropriate. Proper patient education and regularly reviewing medication lists could help to flatten this terrible trend.”

 


Study Dings Medicare Advantage for Cancer Surgery Quality

MA plan design may steer patients to specific centers, researchers suggest

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/medicare/117949

Key Takeaways

  • Enrollment in Medicare Advantage among those undergoing cancer surgeries increased from 32% in 2016 to 46% in 2022.
  • Medicare Advantage enrollees were less likely to undergo cancer surgery at high-quality hospitals versus traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
  • These findings suggest the Medicare Advantage plan design may steer patients to specific centers, potentially limiting choice.

Patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans were less likely to receive cancer surgery at high-quality hospitals compared with traditional Medicare enrollees, a national retrospective cohort study suggested.

Among over 500,000 older adults, higher proportions enrolled in traditional Medicare underwent cancer surgeries at high-quality hospitals compared with those in MA plans:

  • Esophagectomy: 21.7% vs 17.3%
  • Pancreatectomy: 22.6% vs 16.2%
  • Hepatectomy: 22.1% vs 17.5%
  • Gastrectomy: 23.4% vs 15.9%
  • Cystectomy: 21.9% vs 17.1%
  • Colectomy: 20.5% vs 19.5%
  • Nephrectomy: 21.1% vs 18.4%
  • Prostatectomy: 21.7% vs 17.7%

Moreover, MA beneficiaries were less likely than traditional Medicare beneficiaries to bypass a low-quality hospital in order to reach a high-quality center, reported Avinash Maganty, MD, MS, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Surgery

.

“This suggests that MA plan design may steer patients to specific centers and thereby potentially limit choice,” they wrote, which raises concerns “about the adequacy of cancer care delivery under privatized Medicare.”

Although there are “strong incentives” for MA plans to constrain utilization and to contain costs by avoiding contracts with high-quality centers that demand higher reimbursements, there are also incentives to ensure quality care, Maganty and team noted.

“However, the indicators they use to assess hospital quality may emphasize conditions more prevalent among their enrollees, rather than those specific to complex cancer care,” they added. “Notably, in our analysis, we found no association between MA plan star ratings, which are intended to reflect overall quality of a given contract, and the likelihood of receiving surgery at a high-quality hospital.”

In an accompanying

commentary, J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues observed that while this study focused on procedure-specific mortality as a metric for the quality of cancer care, a broader definition of high-quality oncologic surgical care could include operative and pathologic standards, complication and readmission rates, patient experience ratings, and survival.

They suggested that a definition of cancer care quality should “extend beyond surgery, encompassing multiple oncologic disciplines, from diagnosis to palliative and end-of-life care.”

“Education about comprehensive cancer care quality would allow more informed insurance choices,” they concluded. “As healthcare policymakers develop a framework to improve care access, the surgical community must deliver the highest-quality surgical care regardless of the healthcare setting.”

For this study, Maganty and colleagues used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data from January 2016 through November 2022. They included 567,770 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective surgery for esophageal, pancreatic, liver, gastric, bladder, colon, kidney, or prostate cancer at hospitals across the U.S. During the study period, enrollment in MA among those undergoing cancer surgeries increased from 32% to 46%.

Of the 351,447 enrolled in traditional Medicare, mean age was 72.5, 65.8% were men, 85.5% were white, and 9.1% were Black. Of the 216,323 enrolled in MA, mean age was 72.7, 64% were men, 78.8% were white, and 13.4% were Black.

Hospital quality was defined by procedure-specific mortality, risk-adjusted for patient characteristics and reliability-adjusted for differences in case volume using mixed-effects logistic regression models.

Compared with traditional Medicare beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries were more likely to have three or more comorbid conditions (47% vs 45%), more likely to reside in socially vulnerable areas (28.8% vs 24.6%), and less likely to undergo surgery at a teaching hospital (31% vs 36%).

MA beneficiaries traveled shorter distances to a treatment hospital for all procedures compared with traditional Medicare enrollees (mean 36 miles vs 60 miles). They lived closer to a high-quality hospital, but were less likely to bypass a lower-quality hospital to receive surgery at a high-quality hospital.

MAINE RESIDENTS: You are living in a proper pain management DESERT

Greetings pain Warriors 

Janet Mills has not been listening to our attempts to resolve Maine’s hostile environment toward legacy pain patients led by the New England drug task force, Noah Nessin, and Janet Mills 
POSTED ON FB GROUPS + YOUR/MY FEEDS .. 10/15

ASAP: Mark – you know about Governor Mills’ abdication of duty better than any physician!

You sent this to me to help publicize. “Janet Mills has not been listening to our attempts to resolve Maine’s hostile environment toward legacy pain patients led by the New England drug task force, Noah Nessin.”

You and I are asking all in our community … ALL .. to please choose one way or more to ensure that Mills does not replace Senator Susan Collins.

a/ send the above quote to all Maine media:
… print – broadcast – radio, etc.

b/ CALL – NOT email the governor’s office and read the quote.

c/ mail USPS: the above quote + some brief report on what you are suffering with/from – – NAMELY, THAT MAINE IS ONE OF THE WORST STATES IN THE U.S. FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT!

d/ if you get a fundraising communication from Mills – respond with quoting from Dr Mark above.

e/ if you are in Maine – have flyers with Dr Mark’s quote + mine in CAPS above – and post everywhere – on bulletin boards, etc.

ALL in our community weighing in in these user-friendly ways
CAN STOP MILLS!!!

WHY DO THIS IF YOU LIVE ELSEWHERE?
Because it will raise consciousness across America and impact your state and those officials!!