Utilization of National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers by Medicare Beneficiaries with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about which patients use National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs) nationally. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic characteristics associated with decreased NCICC use among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This study examined a national cohort of 534,008 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer in 2017 using multivariable logistic regressions for NCICC use. The covariates in the study were sex, age, cancer type, race/ethnicity, dual-eligibility status for Medicaid and Medicare, and NCICC presence in the home state. RESULTS: In 2017, 19.5 % of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer used an NCICC at least once. Dual-eligible beneficiaries had 29 % lower adjusted odds of NCICC use than non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.73; p < 0.001). American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had 40 % lower odds of NCICC use than non-Hispanic white (NHW) beneficiaries (aOR, 0.60; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.68; p < 0.001). Compared with NHW beneficiaries, the odds of NCICC use were higher for black beneficiaries by 15 % (aOR, 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.18; p < 0.001), for Hispanic beneficiaries by 31 % (aOR, 1.31; 95 % CI, 1.26-1.35; p < 0.001), and for Asian/Pacific Islander beneficiaries by 126 % (aOR, 2.26; 95 % CI, 2.16-2.36; p < 0.001). Utilization declined steadily in older groups, with beneficiaries older than 95 years showing 73 % lower odds of NCICC use than beneficiaries younger than 65 years (aOR, 0.27; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.29; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid-eligible, American Indian/Alaska Native, and older patients are substantially less likely to use NCICCs. Future research should focus on defining and addressing the barriers to NCICC access for these populations.

Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. RESULTS: Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p < 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02087293.

Avoidable Hospitalizations And Observation Stays: Shifts In Racial Disparities.

Racial disparities in hospitalization rates for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions are concerning and may signal differential access to high-quality ambulatory care. Whether racial disparities are improving as a result of better ambulatory care versus artificially narrowing because of increased use of observation status is unclear. Using Medicare data for 2011-15, we sought to determine whether black-white disparities in avoidable hospitalizations were improving and evaluated the degree to which changes in observations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions may be contributing to changes in these gaps. We found that while the racial gap in avoidable hospitalizations due to such conditions has decreased, that seems to be explained by a concomitant increase in the gap of avoidable observation stays. This suggests that changes from inpatient admissions to observation status seem to be driving the reduction in racial disparities in avoidable hospitalizations, rather than changes in the ambulatory setting.

Outcomes of older people admitted to postacute facilities with delirium.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of patients admitted to postacute skilled nursing facilities with delirium, subsyndromal delirium, and no delirium. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven skilled nursing facilities that specialize in postacute care within a single metropolitan region. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred four subjects chosen from 1,248 consenting subjects aged 65 and older who underwent mental status testing within 5 days of admission to the participating facilities. Subjects who met full Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria were classified as delirious, those with one or more CAM criteria were classified as having subsyndromal delirium, and those with no CAM features were classified as having no delirium. All subjects with delirium and with available medical records were included. A random subset of subjects with no delirium and subsyndromal delirium with available medical records was included. MEASUREMENTS: The medical records of all subjects underwent a structured review by trained research nurses who were masked to the subjects' initial delirium status. Records were reviewed for the development of new complications within the postacute setting and to determine whether the subjects were discharged within 30 days and, if so, the discharge destination. The National Death Index was used to assess 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Subjects with delirium were more likely to experience one or more complications than subjects with no delirium (73% vs 41%, P < .01). Within 30 days of postacute admission, subjects with delirium were more than twice as likely to be rehospitalized (30% vs 13%), and less than half as likely to be discharged to the community (30% vs 73%) than subjects without delirium (differences P < .01). Subjects with subsyndromal delirium had outcomes intermediate between those with and without delirium. Finally, subjects admitted to the postacute setting with delirium experienced a 6-month mortality rate of 25.0%, compared with 5.7% in subjects admitted without delirium. Subjects with subsyndromal delirium had a 6-month mortality rate of 18.3%. CONCLUSION: Patients admitted to postacute skilled nursing facilities with delirium are more likely to experience complications, rehospitalization, and death than patients without delirium. These findings support the need for improved case finding and management of delirium in postacute care.