Patient Electronic Access to Final Radiology Reports: What Is the Current Standard of Practice, and Is an Embargo Period Appropriate?

Patients have a right to their medical records, and it has become commonplace for institutions to set up online portals through which patients can access their electronic health information, including radiology reports. However, institutional approaches vary on how and when such access is provided. Many institutions have advocated built-in "embargo" periods, during which radiology reports are not immediately released to patients, to give ordering clinicians the opportunity to first receive, review, and discuss the radiology report with their patients. To understand current practices, a telephone survey was conducted of 83 hospitals identified in the 2019-2020 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings. Of 70 respondents, 91% (64 of 70) offered online portal access. Forty-two percent of those with online access (27 of 64 respondents) reported a delay of 4 days or longer, and 52% (33 of 64 respondents) indicated that they first send reports for review by the referring clinician before releasing to the patient. This demonstrates a lack of standardized practice in prompt patient access to health records, which may soon be mandated under the final rule of the 21st Century Cures Act. This article discusses considerations and potential benefits of early access for patients, radiologists, and primary care physicians in communicating health information and providing patient-centered care. © RSNA, 2021.

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.

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.

Access to Urologic Care at Urgent Care Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Medicaid insurance access disparities for urologic care at urgent care centers (UCCs) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a "secret shopper" methodology. We sampled 240 UCCs across 8 states. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as a patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of obstructing nephrolithiasis. The primary study endpoint was whether a patient's insurance (Medicaid vs commercial) was accepted. We assessed factors associated with Medicaid acceptance using logistic regression models adjusted for state-level and facility-level characteristics. Additionally, we calculated triage rates, emergency department referral rates, and the ability of a UCC to refer the patient to a specialist. RESULTS: Of 240 UCCs contacted, 239 (99.6%) accepted commercial insurance and 159 (66.2%) accepted Medicaid. UCCs in Medicaid expansion states more frequently accepted patients with Medicaid insurance (74.2% vs 58.3%, respectively, P < .01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.26, P = .04) and affiliation with an institution (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.59-5.57, P < .01) were independently associated with greater odds of accepting Medicaid. Medicaid-insured patients were significantly less likely to be triaged or referred to the emergency department compared to commercial patients. CONCLUSION: We identified significant disparities in access to UCCs for Medicaid patients presenting with a urologic condition. Given the expanding national role of UCCs, these findings highlight potential sources of insurance disparity in the context of a urologic emergency.

COVID-19 testing capabilities at urgent care centers in states with greatest disease burden.

While rapid and accessible diagnosis is paramount to monitoring and reducing the spread of disease, COVID-19 testing capabilities across the U.S. remain constrained. For many individuals, urgent care centers (UCCs) may offer the most accessible avenue to be tested. Through a phone survey, we describe the COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs and provide a snapshot highlighting the limited COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs in states with the greatest disease burden.

Tendon tissue engineering: biomechanical considerations.

Engineered soft tissue products-both tendon and ligament-have gained tremendous interest in regenerative medicine as alternatives to autograft and allograft treatments due to their potential to overcome limitations such as pain and donor site morbidity. Tendon engineered grafts have focused on the replication of native tendon tissue composition and architecture in the form of scaffolds using synthetic or natural biomaterials seeded with cells and factors. However, these approaches suffer due to static culture environments that fail to mimic the dynamic tissue environment and mechanical forces required to promote tenogenic differentiation of cultured cells. Mechanical stimulation is sensed by cellular mechanosensors such as integrins, focal adhesion kinase, and other transmembrane receptors which promote tenogenic gene expression and synthesis of tendon extracellular matrix components such as Type I collagen. Thus, it is imperative to apply biological and biomechanical aspects to engineer tendon. This review highlights the origin of tendon tissue, its ability to sense forces from its microenvironment, and the biological machinery that helps in mechanosensation. Additionally, this review focuses on use of bioreactors that aid in understanding cell-microenvironment interactions and enable the design of mechanically competent tendon tissue. We categorize these bioreactors based on functional features, sample size/type, and loading regimes and discuss their application in tendon research. The objective of this article is to provide a perspective on biomechanical considerations in the development of functional tendon tissue.