Geographic Disparities in Access to Neurologists and Multiple Sclerosis Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A shortage of neurology clinicians and healthcare disparities may hinder access to neurologic care. This study examined disparities in geographic access to neurologists and subspecialty multiple sclerosis (MS) care among various demographic segments of the United States. METHODS: Neurologist practice locations from 2022 CMS Care Compare physician data and MS Center locations as defined by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers were used to compute spatial access for all U.S. census tracts. Census tract-level community characteristics (sex, age, race, ethnicity, education, income, insurance, % with computer, % without a vehicle, % with limited English, and % with hearing, vision, cognitive, and ambulatory difficulty) were obtained from 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Rural-urban status was obtained from 2010 rural-urban commuting area codes. Logistic and linear regression models were used to examine access to a neurologist or MS Center within 60 miles and 60-mile spatial access ratios. RESULTS: Of 70,858 census tracts, 388 had no neurologists within 60 miles and 17,837 had no MS centers within 60 miles. Geographic access to neurologists (spatial access ratio [99% CI]) was lower for rural (-80.49%; CI [-81.65 to -79.30]) and micropolitan (-60.50%; CI [-62.40 to -58.51]) areas compared with metropolitan areas. Tracts with 10% greater percentage of Hispanic individuals (-4.53%; CI [-5.23 to -3.83]), men (-6.76%; CI [-8.96 to -4.5]), uninsured (-7.99%; CI [-9.72 to -6.21]), individuals with hearing difficulty (-40.72%; CI [-44.62 to -36.54]), vision difficulty (-13.0%; [-18.72 to -6.89]), and ambulatory difficulty (-15.68%; CI [-19.25 to -11.95]) had lower access to neurologists. Census tracts with 10% greater Black individuals (3.50%; CI [2.93-10.71]), college degree holders (-7.49%; CI [6.67-8.32]), individuals with computers (16.57%, CI [13.82-19.40]), individuals without a vehicle (9.57%; CI [8.69-10.47]), individuals with cognitive difficulty (25.63%; CI [19.77-31.78]), and individuals with limited English (18.5%; CI [16.30-20.73]), and 10-year older individuals (8.85%; CI [7.03-10.71]) had higher spatial access to neurologists. Covariates for access followed similar patterns for MS centers. DISCUSSION: Geographic access to neurologists is decreased in rural areas, in areas with higher proportions of Hispanics, populations with disabilities, and those uninsured. Access is further limited for MS subspecialty care. This study highlights disparities in geographic access to neurologic care.

Relationship of Social Deprivation Among Living Kidney Donor-Recipient Pairs.

Background: Living kidney transplant is the most effective renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease. Community-level factors contribute to pervasive socioeconomic and racial disparities in access to living donor kidney transplantation. Little is known about social and environmental conditions between living donors and recipients. Further understanding of these relationships may enhance opportunities for transplantation. Methods: From 2010 to 2020, 59 575 living kidney donor-recipient pairs (≥18 y old) were identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Living donors and recipients were geocoded to area-level social deprivation index (SDI). The primary outcome was difference between recipient and donor SDI. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine recipient and donor characteristics association with residence in different SDI communities. Results: Living kidney donation occurs across all strata of social deprivation; including when donors, recipients or both reside in more disadvantaged communities. Donor-recipient race combination and biological relationship are associated with differences in SDI. When compared with White recipients of White donors, Black and Hispanic recipients were more likely to reside in more disadvantaged areas (odds ratio = 2.41 [2.19-2.66] and 1.97 [1.78-2.19]). Recipients in anonymous and paired donations were more likely to reside in areas of more disadvantage than their donors (odds ratio = 1.27 [1.15-1.40] and 1.32 [1.23-1.41] compared with biological); attenuating socioeconomic disparities in access to living donor transplantation. Conclusions: Findings illustrate the social and environmental relationships between living kidney donor-recipient pairs that are important to develop targeted approaches and address barriers to living kidney transplantation. Best practices from areas of high deprivation with successful living kidney transplantation can be shared.

Deceased donor kidneys from higher distressed communities are significantly less likely to be utilized for transplantation.

The proportion of kidneys procured for transplantation but not utilized exceeds 20% in the United States. Factors associated with nonutilization are complex, and further understanding of novel causes are critically important. We used the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (2010-2022) to evaluate associations of Distressed Community Index (DCI) of deceased donor residence and likelihood of kidney nonutilization (n = 209 413). Deceased donors from higher distressed communities were younger, had an increased history of hypertension and diabetes, were CDC high-risk, and had higher terminal creatinine and donation after brain death. Mechanisms and circumstances of death varied significantly by DCI. The proportion of kidney nonutilization was 19.9%, which increased by DCI quintile (Q1 = 18.1% to Q5 = 21.6%). The adjusted odds ratio of nonutilization from the highest quintile DCI communities was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.16-1.28; reference = lowest DCI), which persisted stratified by donor race. Donors from highly distressed communities were highly variable by the donor service area (range: 1%-51%; median = 21%). There was no increased risk for delayed graft function or death-censored graft loss by donor DCI but modest increased adjusted hazard for overall graft loss (high DCI = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.01-1.10; reference = lowest DCI). Results indicate that donor residential distress is associated with significantly higher rates of donor kidney nonutilization with notable regional variation and minimal impact on recipient outcomes.

Disparities in spatial access to neurological care in Appalachia: a cross-sectional health services analysis.

Background: Appalachia is rural and socioeconomically deprived with a heavy burden of neurological disorders and poor access to healthcare providers. Rates of neurological disorders are increasing over time without equal increases in providers, indicating that Appalachian disparities are likely to worsen. Spatial access to neurological care has not been robustly explored for U.S. areas, so we aimed to examine disparities in the vulnerable Appalachian region. Methods: Using 2022 CMS Care Compare physician data, we conducted a cross-sectional health services analysis, where we computed spatial accessibility of neurologists for all census tracts in the 13 states with Appalachian counties. We stratified access ratios by state, area deprivation, and rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes then utilized Welch two-sample t-tests to compare Appalachian tracts with non-Appalachian tracts. Using stratified results, we identified Appalachian areas where interventions would have the largest impact. Findings: Appalachian tracts (n = 6169) had neurologist spatial access ratios between 25% and 35% lower than non-Appalachian tracts (n = 18,441; p < 0.001). When stratified by rurality and deprivation, three-step floating catchment area spatial access ratios for Appalachian tracts remained significantly lower in the most urban (RUCA = 1 [p < 0.0001) and most rural tracts (RUCA = 9 [p = 0.0093]; RUCA = 10 [p = 0.0227]). We identified 937 Appalachian census tracts where interventions can be targeted. Interpretation: After stratifying by rural status and deprivation, significant disparities in spatial access to neurologists remained for Appalachian areas, indicating both poorer access in Appalachia and that neurologist accessibility cannot be determined solely by remoteness and socioeconomic status. These findings and our identified disparity areas have broad implications for policymaking and intervention targeting in Appalachia. Funding: R.B.B. was supported by NIH Award Number T32CA094186. M.P.M. was supported by NIH-NCATS Award Number KL2TR002547.

Geographic hot spots of kidney transplant candidates wait-listed post-dialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Preemptive wait-listing of deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) candidates before maintenance dialysis increases the likelihood of transplantation and improves outcomes among transplant patients. Previous studies have identified substantial disparities in rates of preemptive listing, but a gap exists in examining geographic sources of disparities, particularly for sub-regional units. Identifying small area hot spots where delayed listing is particularly prevalent may more effectively inform both health policy and regionally appropriate interventions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing 2010-2020 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data for all DDKT candidates to examine overall and race-stratified geospatial hot spots of post-dialysis wait-listing in U.S. zip code tabulation areas (ZCTA). Three geographic clustering methods were utilized to identify robust statistically significant hot spots of post-dialysis wait-listing. RESULTS: Novel sub-regional hot spots were identified in the southeast, southwest, Appalachia, and California, with a majority existing in the southeast. Race-stratified results were more nuanced, but broadly reflected similar patterns. Comparing transplant candidates in hot spots to candidates in non-clusters indicated a strong association between residence in hot spots and high area deprivation (OR: 6.76, 95%CI: 6.52-7.02), indicating that improving access healthcare in these areas may be particularly beneficial. CONCLUSION: Our study identified overall and race-stratified hot spots with low rates of preemptive wait list placement in the U.S., which may be useful for prospective healthcare policy and interventions via targeting of these narrowly defined geographical areas.