Separate But Not Equal? A Cross-Sectional Study of Segregation by Payor Mix in Academic Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: At some US Academic Health Centers (AHCs), patients with predominantly Medicaid insurance are seen in one clinic and patients with other insurance are seen in another. The extent of this practice and implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of AHCs that have at least two primary care internal medicine clinics that differ substantially in proportion of patients with Medicaid and to compare patient demographic, staffing, and operational features. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine chiefs and clinic directors at 40 randomly selected US AHCs plus the top 10 AHCs in terms of NIH funding. MAIN MEASURE: An AHC was classified as maintaining clinics that differed substantially in the proportion of patients with Medicaid if any two differed by ≥ 40% (absolute). Other criteria were used for pre-specified secondary analyses (e.g., ≥ 30%). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 50 AHCs (78%) participated. Four of 39 (10%; 95% CI, 3 to 24%) had two clinics differing by ≥ 40% in the proportion of patients with Medicaid, eight (21%; 95% CI, 9 to 36%) had clinics differing by ≥ 30%, and 15 (38%; 95% CI, 23 to 55%) had clinics differing by ≥ 20%. Clinics with more patients with Medicaid by any of the three criteria were more likely to employ resident physicians as providers of longitudinal care (with faculty supervision) and more likely to have patients who were Black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Some US AHCs maintain separate clinics defined by the proportion of patients with Medicaid. Clinics with a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid are more likely to employ residents (with faculty oversight), feature residents as providers of longitudinal care, and serve patients who are Black and Hispanic. Further research is needed to understand why some AHCs have primary care clinics distinguishable by insurance mix with the goal of ensuring that racism and discrimination are not root causes.

Relationship Between Standardized Test Scores and Board Certification Exams in a Combined Internal Medicine/Pediatrics Residency Program.

Background Combined Internal Medicine/Pediatrics (Med/Peds) residencies rely on categorical program data to predict pass rates for the American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam (ABIM-CE) and the American Board of Pediatrics Certifying Exam (ABP-CE). There is insufficient literature describing what best predicts a Med/Peds resident passing board exams. In this study, we aimed to determine how standardized test scores predict performance on ABIM-CE and ABP-CE for Med/Peds residents. Methodology We analyzed prior exam scores for 91/96 (95%) residents in a Med/Peds program from 2008 to 2017. Scores from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Steps 1 and 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) and In-Training Exams in Internal Medicine (ITE-IM) and Pediatrics (ITE-P) were analyzed with the corresponding ABIM-CE and ABP-CE first-time scores. Linear and logistic regression were applied to predict board scores/passage. Results USMLE 1 and 2 CK, ITE-IM, and ITE-P scores had a linear relationship with both ABIM-CE and ABP-CE scores. In the linear regression, adjusted R2 values showed low-to-moderate predictive ability (R2 = 0.11-0.35), with the highest predictor of ABIM-CE and ABP-CE being USMLE Step 1 (0.35) and Postgraduate Year 1 (PGY-1) ITE-IM (0.33), respectively. Logistic regression showed odds ratios of passing board certifications ranging from 1.05 to 1.53 per point increase on the prior exam score. The PGY-3 ITE-IM was the best predictor of passing both certifying exams. Conclusions In one Med/Peds program, USMLE Steps 1 and 2 and all ITE-IM and ITE-P scores predicted certifying exam scores and passage. This provides Med/Peds-specific data to allow individualized resident counseling and guide programmatic improvements targeted to board performance.

HIV Health Care Transition Readiness: Embracing the Opportunity and Challenge.

Because of effective treatment and prolonged survival, thousands of young adult people living with HIV will need to transfer their health care to adult care providers. However, many lack basic essential skills and are not prepared for this transition. Many providers do not assess transition readiness on a regular basis. Validated transition readiness assessment tools can help providers guide interventions based on identified skill and knowledge deficits. Our purpose was to describe the impact of incorporating a validated Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) into clinical practice. A retrospective chart review of 48 patients with HIV, ages 22-24 years, showed that the use of the TRAQ significantly affected provider interventions in the area of medication management (odds ratio: 0.02). Overall, the use of the TRAQ did not increase clinical interventions; however, it enabled providers to identify knowledge or skill deficits not previously addressed and to plan future clinical interventions to meet individual patient needs.