Choosing the Best Approach to Warfarin Reversal After Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Patients on warfarin with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage often have the warfarin effects pharmacologically reversed. We compared outcomes among patients who received 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), or no reversal to assess the real-world impact of PCC on elderly patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 150 patients on preinjury warfarin. Data were manually abstracted from the electronic medical record of an academic level 1 trauma center for patients admitted between January 2013 and December 2018. Outcomes were ICH progression on follow-up computed tomography scan, mortality, need for surgical intervention, and trends in the use of reversal agents. RESULTS: Of 150 patients eligible for analysis, 41 received FFP, 60 PCC, and 49 were not reversed. On multivariable analysis, patients not reversed [OR 0.25 95% CI (0.31-0.85)] and women [OR 0.38 95% CI (0.17-0.88)] were less likely to experience progression of their initial bleed on follow-up computed tomography while subdural hemorrhage increased the risk [OR 3.69 95% CI (1.27-10.73)]. There was no difference between groups in terms of mortality or need for surgery. Over time use of reversal with PCC increased while use of FFP and not reversing warfarin declined (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender and using a reversal agent were associated with progression of ICH. Choice of reversal did not impact the need for surgery, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Some ICH patients may not require warfarin reversal and may bias studies, especially retrospective studies of warfarin reversal.

Regional Anesthesia is Underutilized for Carotid Endarterectomy Despite Improved Perioperative Outcomes Compared with General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The choice of anesthetic for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) continues to be controversial. Recent literature suggests improved outcomes with the use of regional anesthesia (RA) compared with general anesthesia (GA). The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and outcomes of RA for CEA using a national database. METHODS: The targeted CEA files of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified based on anesthesia type into RA and GA, and patients' characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The outcomes of CEA under GA and RA were compared after 2:1 propensity matching. RESULTS: There were 26,206 CEAs, and 14% (n = 3,664) were performed under RA, with no change in relative utilization during the study period (P = 0.557). Patients treated under RA were more likely to be older than 65 years (80.6% vs. 75.8%; P < 0.001) and White (90.8% vs. 83.5%; P < 0.001) but less likely to have diabetes (28.2% vs. 31.2%; P = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.2% vs. 10.5%; P < 0.001), and heart failure (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02) and be symptomatic (37.4% vs. 42.7%; P < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients undergoing RA were less likely to experience the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality compared with GA. GA patients were more likely to have longer operating time and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: CEA performed under RA is associated with improved outcomes compared with GA. RA is underutilized in carotid surgery, and strategies to optimize its use are needed.

Urgent care center wait times increase for COVID-19 results in August 2020, with rapid testing availability limited.

BACKGROUND: In a response to the pandemic, urgent care centers (UCCs) have gained a critical role as a common location for COVID-19 testing. We sought to characterize the changes in testing accessibility at UCCs between March and August 2020 on the basis of testing availability (including rapid antigen testing), wait time for test results, cost of visits, and cost of tests. METHODS: Data were collected using a secret shopper methodology. Researchers contacted 250 UCCs in 10 states. Investigators used a standardized script to survey centers on their COVID-19 testing availability and policies. UCCs were initially contacted in March and re-called in August. T-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to identify differences between March and August data and differences by center classification. RESULTS: Our results indicate that both polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 genetic material and rapid antigen COVID-19 tests have increased in availability. However, wait times for PCR test results have significantly increased to an average of 5.79 days. Additionally, a high proportion of UCCs continue to charge for tests and visits and no significant decrease was found in the proportion of UCCs that charge for COVID-19 testing from March to August. Further, no state reported a majority of UCCs with rapid testing available, indicating an overall lack of rapid testing. CONCLUSIONS: From March to August, COVID-19 testing availability gradually improved. However, many barriers lie in access to COVID-19 testing, including testing costs, visit costs, and overall lack of availability of rapid testing in the majority of UCCs. Despite the passage of the CARES Act, these results suggest that there is room for additional policy to improve accessibility to testing, specifically rapid testing.

Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers Restrict Access for Patients with Medicaid Insurance Based on Policy and Location.

BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Urgent Care Centers Delay Emergent Surgical Care Based on Patient Insurance Status in The United States.

OBJECTIVE: Patients may call urgent care centers (UCCs) with urgent surgical conditions but may not be properly referred to a higher level of care. This study aims to characterize how UCCs manage Medicaid and privately insured patients who present with an emergent condition. METHODS: Using a standardized script, we called 1245 randomly selected UCCs in 50 states on 2 occasions. Investigators posed as either a Medicaid or a privately-insured patient with symptoms of an incarcerated inguinal hernia. Rates of direct emergency department (ED) referral were compared between insurance types. RESULTS: A total of 1223 (98.2%) UCCs accepted private insurance and 981 (78.8%) accepted Medicaid. At the 971 (78.0%) UCCs that accepted both insurance types, direct-to-ED referral rates for private and Medicaid patients were 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely than private patients to be referred to the ED [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.60]. Private patients who were triaged by a clinician compared to nonclinician staff were over 6 times more likely to be referred to the ED (OR 6.46, 95% CI 4.63-9.01). Medicaid patients were nearly 9 times more likely to have an ED referral when triaged by a clinician (OR 8.72, 95% CI 6.19-12.29). CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of UCCs across the United States referred an apparent emergent surgical case to the ED, potentially delaying care. Medicaid patients were more likely to be referred directly to the ED versus privately insured patients. All patients triaged by clinicians were significantly more likely to be referred to the ED; however, the disparity between private and Medicaid patients remained.

Redefining the Role of Surgical Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) continues to evolve with ongoing advancements in systemic therapy, raising further questions about the optimal role of surgery in the management of mRCC. Herein, we provide a context and review of the recent evidence concerning the role of surgical therapy for patients with mRCC including cytoreductive nephrectomy and distant metastatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: One randomized trial has been published in the targeted therapy era suggesting that initial systemic therapy is non-inferior to cytoreductive nephrectomy among patients with intermediate and poor-risk mRCC. Delaying cytoreductive nephrectomy until after systemic therapy may be a viable treatment approach, although a high level of evidence is lacking. Additional questions remain regarding the sequence of surgery with systemic therapy, utility of distant metastatectomy, as well as the application of these findings to the current generation of immunotherapy. Recent evidence challenges the need of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy for unselected patients with mRCC. However, surgical therapy continues to play an important role in the management of the disease.

The Effect of Insurance Type on Patient Access to Knee Arthroplasty and Revision under the Affordable Care Act.

This study evaluated access to knee arthroplasty and revision in 8 geographically representative states. Patients with Medicaid were significantly less likely to receive an appointment compared to patients with Medicare or BlueCross. However, patients with Medicaid had increased success at making an appointment in states with expanded Medicaid eligibility (37.7% vs 22.8%, P=0.011 for replacement, 42.6% vs 26.9%, P=0.091 for revision), although they experienced longer waiting periods (31.5 days vs 21.1 days, P=0.054 for replacement, 45.5 days vs 22.5 days, P=0.06 for revision). Higher Medicaid reimbursement also had a direct correlation with appointment success rate for Medicaid patients (OR=1.232, P=0.001 for replacement, OR=1.314, P=0.014 for revision).

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Secret shopper studies: an unorthodox design that measures inequities in healthcare access.

Secret shopper studies are particularly potent study designs that allow for the gathering of objective data for a variety of research hypotheses, including but not limited to, healthcare delivery, equity of healthcare, and potential barriers to care. Of particular interest during the COVID-19 pandemic, secret shopper study designs allow for the gathering of data over the phone. However, there is a dearth of literature available on appropriate methodological practices for these types of studies. To make these study designs more widely accessible, here we outline the case for using the secret shopper methodology and detail best practices for designing and implementing them.

Charges for Initial Visits for Uninsured Patients at Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers in the US.

Importance: In recent years, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) have opened across the US. Uninsured patients may increasingly turn to these orthopedic-specific urgent care centers as a lower-cost alternative to emergency department or general urgent care center visits. Objective: To assess out-of-pocket costs and factors associated with these costs at MUCCs for uninsured and underinsured patients in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a national secret shopper survey was conducted in June 2019. Clinics identified as MUCCs in 50 states were contacted by telephone by investigators using a standardized script and posing as uninsured patients seeking information on the out-of-pocket charge for a new patient visit. Exposures: State Medicaid expansion status, clinic Medicaid acceptance status, state Medicaid reimbursement rate, median income per zip code, and clinic region. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was each clinic's out-of-pocket charge for a level 3 visit, defined as a new patient office visit requiring medical decision-making of low complexity. Linear regression was used to examine correlations of price with clinic policy against accepting Medicaid, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit. Results: Of 565 MUCCs identified, 558 MUCCs were able to be contacted (98.8%); 536 of the 558 MUCCs (96.1%) disclosed a new patient visit out-of-pocket charge. Of those, 313 (58.4%) accepted Medicaid insurance and 326 (60.8%) were located in states with expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The mean (SD) price of a visit to an MUCC was $250 ($110). Clinic policy against accepting Medicaid (ß, 22.91; 95% CI, 12.57-33.25; P < .001), higher median income per zip code (ß, 0.00056; 95% CI, 0.00020-0.00092; P = .003), and increased Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit (ß, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.158-1.316; P = .01) were positively correlated with visit price. The overall regression was statistically significance (R2 = 0.084; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, MUCCs charged a mean price of $250 for a new patient visit. Medicaid acceptance policy, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit were associated with differences in out-of-pocket charges. These findings suggest that accessibility to orthopedic urgent care at MUCCs may be limited for underinsured and uninsured patients.

Association Between Private Equity Acquisition of Urology Practices and Physician Medicare Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether private equity (PE) acquisitions of urology practices were associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume. METHODS: We identified PE acquisitions of urology practices through financial databases, industry news outlets, practice websites, and Google search. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (2012-2019), we conducted descriptive statistics and trends analysis to examine whether PE acquisition was associated with changes in Medicare payments and patient volume in comparison to non-PE affiliated urologists within the same states. RESULTS: We identified PE acquisitions of 10 independent urology practices across 6 states during the study period. In the preacquisition period, urologists later joining private-equity groups received greater mean inflation-adjusted Medicare payments ($246,977 vs $160,038; P <.001) and had greater patient volume (839.7 vs 674.2 patients; P = .001) than urologists who did not. In the postacquisition period, PE affiliated urologists had an 11.0% (95% CI: -0.2% to 22.3%) increase in inflation-adjusted Medicare payments (P = .054) and a 12.5% (95% CI: 6.5%-18.6%) increase in patient volume (P <.001). Non-PE affiliated urologists exhibited a 6% decline in Medicare payments (P <.001) and a 2.7% increase in patient volume (P <.001). CONCLUSION: PE affiliated urologists exhibited increases in Medicare payments even prior to acquisition, in contrast to declines for geographically similar, non-PE urologists. These findings may highlight characteristics of practices targeted by PE firms and local practice trends that may further diverge following acquisition.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Evaluating musculoskeletal urgent care center triage and transfer of emergency conditions for emergency surgical assessment and intervention.

Musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are an alternative to emergency departments (EDs) for patients to seek care for low acuity orthopedic injuries such as ankle sprains or joint pain, but are not equipped to manage orthopedic emergencies that require a higher level of care provided in the ED. This study aims to evaluate telephone and online triage practices as well as ED transfer procedures for MUCCs for patients presenting with an orthopedic condition requiring urgent surgical intervention. We called 595 MUCCs using a standardized script presenting as a critical patient with symptoms of lower extremity compartment syndrome. We compared direct ED referral frequency and triage frequency for MUCCs for patients insured by either Medicaid or by private insurance. We found that patients presenting with an apparent compartment syndrome were directly referred to the ED by < 1 in 5 MUCCs. Additionally, < 5% of patients were asked additional triage questions that would increase clinician suspicion for compartment syndrome and allow MUCCs to appropriately direct patients to the ED. MUCCs provide limited telephone and online triage for patients, which may result in delays of care for life or limb threatening injuries that require ED resources such as sedation, reductions, and emergency surgery. However, when MUCCs did conduct triage, it significantly increased the likelihood that patients were appropriately referred to the ED. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

Urology Practice Acquisitions by Private Equity Firms from 2011-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity firms have recently acquired several large urology practices in the United States. As little is known about these acquisitions, we sought to characterize trends in urology practice consolidation. METHODS: We compiled urology practice acquisition data via financial databases, news outlets, practice websites, and Internet keyword search for the time period January 1, 2011 through March 15, 2021. For each acquisition, we determined the acquiring group, number of employed urologists, practice locations, and status of ancillary services (pathology, radiology, or surgery centers). We estimated workforce effects based on the 2019 American Urological Association workforce census. RESULTS: We identified 69 independent practice acquisitions in the study period, including 19 (28.4%) by hospital systems, 7 (10.4%) by multispecialty physician groups, 23 (34.3%) by urology practices, and 20 (29.9%) by private equity-backed platforms. Private equity firms initially targeted large urology practices (mean of 60.8±32.6 urologists) with ownership of ancillary services and consolidated local market share through acquisitions of smaller practices (mean of 15.9±14.5 urologists). As of March 2021, we estimate that 7.2% of private practice urologists in the U.S. were employed by one of 5 private equity-backed platforms; over 25% of all urologists practicing in New Jersey and Maryland are employed by a private equity-backed platform. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisitions have accelerated to become a dominant form of urology practice consolidation in recent years and have achieved significant market influence in certain regions. Future research should assess the impact of private equity investment on practice patterns, health outcomes, and expenditures.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.