No abstract

ImportancePatients with urologic diseases often experience financial toxicity, defined as high levels of financial burden and concern, after receiving care. The Price Transparency Final Rule, which requires hospitals to disclose both the commercial and cash prices for at least 300 services, was implemented to facilitate price shopping, decrease price dispersion, and lower health care costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate compliance with the Price Transparency Final Rule and to quantify variations in the price of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a cross-sectional study that determined the prices of 5 common urologic procedures among academic medical centers and by insurance class. Prices were obtained from the Turquoise Health Database on March 24, 2022. Academic hospitals were identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges website. The 5 most common urologic procedures were cystourethroscopy, prostate biopsy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, transurethral resection of the prostate, and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy. Using the corresponding Current Procedural Terminology codes, the Turquoise Health Database was queried to identify the cash price, Medicare price, Medicaid price, and commercial insurance price for these procedures.ExposuresThe Price Transparency Final Rule, which went into effect January 1, 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresVariability in procedure price among academic medical centers and by insurance class (Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, and cash price).ResultsOf 153 hospitals, only 20 (13%) listed a commercial price for all 5 procedures. The commercial price was reported most often for cystourethroscopy (86 hospitals [56%]) and least often for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (45 hospitals [29%]). The cash price was lower than the Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial price at 24 hospitals (16%). Prices varied substantially across hospitals for all 5 procedures. There were significant variations in the prices of cystoscopy (χ23 = 85.9; P = .001), prostate biopsy (χ23 = 64.6; P = .001), prostatectomy (χ23 = 24.4; P = .001), transurethral resection of the prostate (χ23 = 51.3; P = .001), and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (χ23 = 63.0; P = .001) by insurance type.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that, more than 1 year after the implementation of the Price Transparency Final Rule, there are still large variations in the prices of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class. Currently, in certain situations, health care costs could be reduced if patients paid out of pocket. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services may improve price transparency by better enforcing penalties for noncompliance, increasing penalties, and ensuring that hospitals report prices in a way that is easy for patients to access and understand.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant restructuring of healthcare with conservation of resources and maintaining social distancing standards. With these new initiatives, it is conceivable that the diagnosis of cancer care may be delayed. We aimed to evaluate differences in patient populations being evaluated for cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Materials We performed a retrospective review of our electronic medical record and examined patient characteristics of those presenting for a possible new cancer diagnosis to our urologic oncology clinic. Data was analyzed using logistic and linear regression models. Results During the 3-month period before the COVID-19 pandemic began, 585 new patients were seen in one urologic oncology practice. The following 3-month period, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 362 patients were seen, corresponding to a 38% decline. Visits per week increased to pre-COVID-19 levels for kidney and bladder cancer as the county entered the green phase. Prostate cancer visits per week remained below pre-COVID-19 levels in the green phase. When the 2 populations pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 were compared, there were no notable differences on regression analysis. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic decreased the total volume of new patient referrals for possible genitourinary cancer diagnoses. The impact this will have on cancer survival remains to be determined.

Highlights d APA shifts are an adaptive response to DNA damage in cancer cells d Downregulation of PCF11 contributes to DNA damageinduced APA shifts d Full-length MSL1 mRNA upregulation protects cells from DNA damage-induced apoptosis d Blocking MSL1 upregulation enhances cytotoxicity of chemotherapeutic agents

Alternative polyadenylation (APA) generates mRNA isoforms and diversifies gene expression. Here we report the identification of a twin UGUA motif, UGUAYUGUA, and its function in APA. Applying cTag-PAPERCLIP to Tsc1 conditional knockout mice, we discovered that the mTORC1 pathway balances expression of Trim9 isoforms. We showed that CFIm components, CPSF6 and NUDT21, promote Trim9/TRIM9-S expression in mouse and human, and we identified an evolutionarily conserved UGUAYUGUA motif that is critical for this regulation. We found additional CPSF6-regulated polyadenylation sites (PASs) with similar twin UGUA motifs in human, and we experimentally validated the twin UGUA motif functionality in BMPR1B, MOB4, and BRD4-L. Importantly, we showed that inserting a twin UGUA motif into a heterologous PAS was sufficient to confer regulation by CPSF6 and mTORC1. Our study reveals an evolutionarily conserved mechanism to regulate gene isoform expression and implicates possible gene isoform imbalance in cancer and neurologic disorders with mTORC1 pathway dysregulation.