Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Incidence and Mortality from Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Individuals in Medicaid expanded states have increased access to treatment for medical conditions and other health care resources. Esophageal and gastric cancer are associated with several modifiable risk factors (e.g. smoking, drinking, Helicobacter pylori infection). The impact of Medicaid expansion on these cancers incidence and mortality remains uninvestigated. METHODS: We evaluated the association between Medicaid expansion and gastric and esophageal cancer incidence and mortality in adults aged 25-64. We employed an observational design using a difference-in-differences method with state level data, from 2010 to 2017. Annual, age-adjusted gastric and esophageal cancer incidence and mortality rates, from the CDC Wonder Database, were analyzed. Rates were adjusted for by several socio-demographic factors. RESULTS: Expansion and non-expansion states were similar in percent Hispanic ethnicity and female gender. The non-expansion states had significantly higher proportion of Black race, diabetics, obese persons, smokers, and those living below the federal poverty line. Adjusted analyses demonstrate that expansion states had significantly fewer new cases of gastric cancer: - 1.6 (95% CI 0.2-3.5; P = 0.08) per 1,000,000 persons per year. No significant association was seen between Medicaid expansion and gastric cancer mortality (0.46 [95% CI - 0.08 to 0.17; P = 0.46]) and esophageal cancer incidence (0.8 [95% CI - 0.08 to 0.24; P = 0.33]) and mortality (1.0 [95% CI - 0.06 to 0.26; P = 0.21]) in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: States that adopted Medicaid expansion saw a decrease in gastric cancer incidence when compared to states that did not expand Medicaid. Though several factors may influence gastric cancer incidence, this association is important to consider during health policy negotiations.

Rapid improvement in organ procurement organization performance: Potential for change and impact of new leadership.

Recently proposed rulemaking from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would change how organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are evaluated. The proposals include using national inpatient death data to define a standardized denominator to calculate comparable donation rates among OPOs. Based on these objective metrics, OPOs not performing at a prespecified threshold will be required to rapidly improve performance to avoid decertification. We sought to determine whether rapid OPO improvement was possible based on objective donation metrics, and whether leadership change was associated with rapid improvement. We evaluated United Network for Organ Sharing and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2011 to 2018, and measured donation rates using CDC data on inpatient deaths from causes consistent with donation, based on the location of deaths. During the two 4-year cycles, we found that an OPO's ranking relative to other OPOs was fairly static, with more than 90% of the OPOs at risk of flagging at the end of each 4-year cycle (2014, 2018) being in the bottom 75% of OPOs in the preceding 3 years. In multivariable logistic regression models, leadership changes were only statistically significantly associated with an improvement in OPO rankings during the 2011-2014 cycle. These data demonstrate that rapid improvements in OPO performance are uncommon, and while leadership changes increase the odds of rapid improvement, they do not guarantee improvement.