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.

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.

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.

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).