Disparities in Teleneurology Use in Medicaid Beneficiaries With Epilepsy by Practice Setting: Promoting Health Equity in Academic Centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medicaid beneficiaries in many American academic medical centers can receive care in a separate facility than those not covered by Medicaid. We aimed to identify possible disparities in care by evaluating the association between facility type (integrated faculty practice or Medicaid-only outpatient clinic) and telehealth utilization in people with epilepsy. METHODS: We performed retrospective analyses using structured data from the Mount Sinai Health System electronic medical record data from January 2003 to August 2021. We identified people of all ages with epilepsy who were followed by an epileptologist after January 3, 2018, using a validated ICD-9-CM/10-CM coded case definition. We evaluated associations between practice setting and telehealth utilization, an outcome measure that captures the evolving delivery of neurologic care in a post-coronavirus disease 2019 era, using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 4,586 people with epilepsy seen by an epileptologist, including Medicaid beneficiaries in the Medicaid outpatient clinic (N = 387), Medicaid beneficiaries in the faculty practice after integration (N = 723), and non-Medicaid beneficiaries (N = 3,476). Patients not insured by Medicaid were significantly older (average age 40 years vs 29 in persons seen in Medicaid-only outpatient clinic and 28.5 in persons insured with Medicaid seen in faculty practice [p < 0.0001]). Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to have drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), with 51.94% of people seen in Medicaid-only outpatient clinic, 41.63% of Medicaid beneficiaries seen in faculty practice, and 37.2% of non-Medicaid beneficiaries having DRE (p < 0.0001). Medicaid outpatient clinic patients were less likely to have telehealth visits (phone or video); 81.65% of patients in the Medicaid outpatient clinic having no telehealth visits vs 71.78% of Medicaid beneficiaries in the faculty practice and 70.89% of non-Medicaid beneficiaries (p < 0.0001). In an adjusted logistic regression analysis, Medicaid beneficiaries had lower odds (0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81) of using teleneurology compared with all patients seen in faculty practice (p = 0.0005). DISCUSSION: Compared with the Medicaid-only outpatient clinic, we found higher telehealth utilization in the integrated faculty practice with no difference by insurance status (Medicaid vs other). Integrated care may be associated with better health care delivery in people with epilepsy; thus, future research should examine its impact on other epilepsy-related outcomes.

Health equity integrated epilepsy care and research: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: With the unanimous approval of the Intersectoral Global Action Plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders by the World Health Organization in May 2022, there are strong imperatives to work towards equitable neurological care. AIMS: Using epilepsy as an entry point to other neurologic conditions, we discuss disparities faced by marginalized groups including racial/ethnic minorities, Americans living in rural communities, and Americans with low socioeconomic status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Institute on Minority Health Disparities Research Framework (NIMHD) was used to conduct a narrative review through a health equity lens to create an adapted framework for epilepsy and propose approaches to working towards equitable epilepsy and neurological care. RESULTS: In this narrative review, we identified priority populations (racial and ethnic minority, rural-residing, and low socioeconomic status persons with epilepsy) and outcomes (likelihood to see a neurologist, be prescribed antiseizure medications, undergo epilepsy surgery, and be hospitalized) to explore disparities in epilepsy and guide our focused literature search using PubMed. In an adapted NIMHD framework, we examined individual, interpersonal, community, and societal level contributors to health disparities across five domains: (1) behavioral, (2) physical/built environment, (3) sociocultural, (4) environment, and (5) healthcare system. We take a health equity approach to propose initiatives that target modifiable factors that impact disparities and advocate for sustainable change for priority populations. DISCUSSION: To improve equity, healthcare providers and relevant societal stakeholders can advocate for improved care coordination, referrals for epilepsy surgery, access to care, health informatics interventions, and education (i.e., to providers, patients, and communities). More broadly, stakeholders can advocate for reforms in medical education, and in the American health insurance landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Equitable healthcare should be a priority in neurological care.

Nursing Home Characteristics Associated with High and Low Levels of Antipsychotic, Benzodiazepine, and Opioid Prescribing to Residents with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between nursing home (NH) characteristics and whether NHs had high or low levels of antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, or opioid prescribing to residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). We then measured the likelihood that NHs who were high (low) prescribers of antipsychotics were also high (low) prescribers of benzodiazepines or opioids. DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample included 448,128 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with ADRD, who resided in 13,151 NHs in 2017. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, the Minimum Data Set, and LTCFocus, we measured the share of NH residents with ADRD who filled ≥1 antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, or opioid prescription in 2017. Using linear probability models with state-clustered SEs, we identified which NH characteristics were associated with being in the top (bottom) quartile of the prescribing distribution for each drug class. Finally, we measured whether NHs who were top-quartile (bottom-quartile) antipsychotic prescribers were more likely to be top-quartile (bottom-quartile) benzodiazepine or opioid prescribers. RESULTS: Across NHs, an average of 29.1% of residents with ADRD received an antipsychotic, 30.2% received a benzodiazepine, and 40.9% received an opioid. Smaller NHs and NHs with a larger share of Medicaid-enrolled residents were more likely to be top-quartile prescribers; NHs with more registered nursing care were more likely to be bottom-quartile prescribers. Antipsychotic prescribing tracked closely with benzodiazepine prescribing, but not opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The overlap between antipsychotic and benzodiazepine prescribing and our finding that some NH characteristics were consistently associated with prescribing across drug classes may support the idea of an organizational culture of prescribing in NHs, which could inform efforts to improve prescribing quality in NHs. Our results also highlight benzodiazepine and opioid use for ADRD, which were more commonly prescribed than antipsychotics in NHs but have received less regulatory attention.

Disparities in Primary Care Wait Times in Medicaid versus Commercial Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to primary care is important, particularly among patients with acute conditions and patients seeking gateways to specialty care. Due to concerns that expanded Medicaid eligibility would compromise access to primary care among new Medicaid beneficiaries, an experimental study was conducted to test the ability to obtain timely appointments. Although access to primary care appointments for simulated Medicaid patients significantly increased, wait times also increased. This study explores the determinants of wait times and whether they pose greater barriers to Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: We conducted linear regressions to determine the association between the number of days to scheduled appointments and the simulated patient's clinical scenario, practice-level characteristics, and county-level measures of primary care supply. RESULTS: Simulated Medicaid patients faced 1.3 days longer wait times than commercially insured ones. Participation in accountable care organizations and integrated health systems was associated with longer wait times but did not seem to reduce wait time disparities across insurance types. Notably, the presence of Federally Qualified Health Centers in a given county was associated with lower wait times for simulated Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the complexity of access disparities for Medicaid patients and provide insight for future waves of health care reform.

Registry-based trials: a potential model for cost savings?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Registry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials. METHODS: We built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design. RESULTS: Registry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field. CONCLUSIONS: Registries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.