MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4378172245 · doi:10.1093/asj/sjad160

Expanding Medicare Part D Coverage of Weight Loss Medications: The Impact on Plastic Surgery

2023· letter· en· W4378172245 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rishub K. Das, Kent Higdon, Galen Perdikis

Notice bibliographique

RevueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2023
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePlastic surgeryWeight lossSurgeryMEDLINEInternal medicineObesity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Obesity affects more than 40% of US adults and increases the risk of other conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.1 Considering the medical and economic costs associated with obesity, interest in weight loss management has increased over the last 2 decades with advances in lifestyle counseling and bariatric surgery. Patients who achieve massive weight loss (MWL) are often left with skin redundancy, dysfunction, and deformity that can be treated with plastic surgery. Herein, we discuss the rising demand for weight loss medications and its impact on practice patterns in plastic surgery. Until recently, medications to treat obesity were limited. Those that were available, including phentermine, topiramate, bupropion, and naltrexone, had minimal efficacy and received poor evidence ratings as obesity treatments. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for chronic weight management. Semaglutide is administered in a once weekly injection and works by regulating appetite, blood sugar, insulin, and stomach emptying. Although drugs of the same class had been approved for diabetes, this was the first GLP-1 receptor agonist approved for weight loss. In clinical trials, semaglutide produced 10% to more than 20% weight loss in 6 months.1,2 Some private insurers cover semaglutide for weight loss after prior authorization. However, Medicare, the largest payer in the US, has a strict policy regarding covering prescriptions for weight loss and obesity. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act introduced in March 2021 seeks to expand Medicare Part D coverage to include weight loss medications. Momentum for passage of this legislation has gained traction recently as the body of literature supporting the efficacy of semaglutide continues to grow. To understand trends in public interest for weight loss medications, we used Google Trends (Google, Mountain View, CA) to access search data histories for the term “semaglutide.” Interest level was reported in a relative measure, with 100 assigned to the week with the highest number of searches for semaglutide. Interest in semaglutide peaked during the week of March 19 to 25 in 2023 (Figure 1). Between March 2022 and March 2023, interest in semaglutide increased by 80.0 relative percentage points. The United States ranks fourth worldwide in relative interest, after Canada, Brazil, and Australia. Within the United States, search interest for semaglutide was concentrated in the South and Southeast (Figure 2). The states with the most interest were Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia. The most common related topics searched were “GoodRx” and “shortage,” likely referring to opportunities for cost savings given the high price of the medication and the Ozempic (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) shortage announced by the FDA in fall 2022. Google search interest in semaglutide over the past 5 years. Data source: Google Trends (www.google.com/trends). National trends in public interest in semaglutide. Darker shading indicates higher relative public interest. Data source: Google Trends (www.google.com/trends). Previous studies have validated Google Trends as a tool for predicting public interest and growth in case volume for certain plastic surgery procedures.3 Our results suggest that utilization of weight loss medications will continue increasing, especially with expansion of coverage through Medicare Part D. With more patients taking medications as part of multimodal weight loss treatments, the burden of skin redundancy and associated diseases such as intertrigo will also increase. To address these concerns and improve long-term weight control, patients who have success with medications may desire body contouring procedures, paralleling the increase in postbariatric plastic surgery. According to statistics from The Aesthetic Society, between 2001 and 2021 the annual rates for body contouring procedures such as panniculectomy, brachioplasty, and thighplasty increased by 298%, from 87,553 to 348,863. Moreover, patients over age 60 were the fastest-growing age group undergoing body contouring procedures.4 Weight loss with semaglutide has also been associated with deflated skin envelopes, laxity, and volume loss on the face. Colloquially called “Ozempic face,” these undesirable effects can be managed with facial fat grafting, dermal fillers, and rhytidectomy after discontinuation of the medication. Expansion of Medicare Part D to include medications for weight loss and obesity treatment will have significant downstream effects on plastic surgery practices. Plastic surgeons, especially those in the South and Southeast, should prepare for increased demand in procedures for skin redundancy as access to weight loss medications improves. For many MWL patients, the goal of body contouring surgery will prioritize functional over cosmetic outcomes, especially for surgeries covered by health insurance. Certain risks such as poor wound healing due to nutritional deficiencies should be carefully evaluated before surgery. Accordingly, multidisciplinary care teams that include plastic surgeons should be established to optimize outcomes. Research shows that body contouring improves long-term quality of life in bariatric surgery patients; future studies should evaluate whether the same conclusions apply to patients who use weight loss medications.5 The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,562
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAesthetic Surgery JournalMême sujetBariatric Surgery and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207