Resilience and Value: Pediatric Trauma Care in Safety Net Hospitals.

Background: In the setting of limited funding and high expectations for quality care, safety net hospitals play a crucial role in treating pediatric trauma patients. This study aimed to compare outcomes and hospitalization costs of pediatric trauma patients in safety net hospitals across the United States. Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database for 2016-2020 was queried for all patients under the age of 18 years hospitalized for traumatic injury. Patients admitted to safety net hospitals were propensity matched 1:1 to all other patients. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were readmission within 1-year, mean length of stay (LOS), total charges, and total hospitalization costs including readmissions. Results: There were 176,325 patients meeting inclusion criteria, and 30,869 were admitted to safety net hospitals. All safety net patients were successfully matched across predictors, and 61,738 patients were included. The overall mortality rate was 1.4% (n = 834), and the mortality risk was similar in safety net hospitals (OR 1.11 [.96-1.27] P = .15). The overall readmission rate, mean LOS, and mean total cost were similar for safety net hospitals when compared to all hospitals. However, the overall mean total charge was $78,724 (±$224,884) and was lower in safety net hospitals ($76,575 [±$198,342], P = .02). Discussion: Safety net hospitals deliver comparable outcomes as other health care facilities when caring for pediatric trauma patients. Notably, these hospitals appear to undercharge for their services, despite incurring similar costs in the process. These results shed light on the resilience of safety net hospitals in delivering quality and cost-effective care.

Financial Impact of a Radiology Safety Net Program for Resolution of Clinically Necessary Follow-up Imaging Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Health care safety net (SN) programs can potentially improve patient safety and decrease risk associated with missed or delayed follow-up care, although they require financial resources. This study aimed to assess whether the revenue generated from completion of clinically necessary recommendations for additional imaging (RAI) made possible by an IT-enabled SN program could fund the required additional labor resources. METHODS: Clinically necessary RAI generated October 21, 2019, to September 24, 2021, were tracked to resolution as of April 13, 2023. A new radiology SN team worked with existing schedulers and care coordinators, performing chart review and patient and provider outreach to ensure RAI resolution. We applied relevant Current Procedural Terminology, version 4 codes of the completed imaging examinations to estimate total revenue. Coprimary outcomes included revenue generated by total performed examinations and estimated revenue attributed to SN involvement. We used Student's t test to compare the secondary outcome, RAI time interval, for higher versus lower revenue-generating modalities. RESULTS: In all, 24% (3,243) of eligible follow-up recommendations (13,670) required SN involvement. Total estimated revenue generated by performed recommended examinations was $6,116,871, with $980,628 attributed to SN. Net SN-generated revenue per 1.0 full-time equivalent was an estimated $349,768. Greatest proportion of performed examinations were cross-sectional modalities (CT, MRI, PET/CT), which were higher revenue-generating than non-cross-sectional modalities (x-ray, ultrasound, mammography), and had shorter recommendation time frames (153 versus 180 days, P < .001). DISCUSSION: The revenue generated from completion of RAI facilitated by an IT-enabled quality and safety program supplemented by an SN team can fund the required additional labor resources to improve patient safety. Realizing early revenue may require 5 to 6 months postimplementation.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Do safety-net hospitals provide equitable care after decompressive surgery for acute cauda equina syndrome?

INTRODUCTION: Safety-net hospitals provide care to a substantial share of disadvantaged patient populations. Whether disparities exist between safety-net hospitals and their counterparts in performing emergent neurosurgical procedures has not yet been examined. OBJECTIVE: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), a national all-payer inpatient healthcare database, to determine whether safety-net hospitals provide equitable care after decompressive surgery for acute cauda equina syndrome (CES). METHODS: The NIS from 2002 to 2011 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of acute CES who received decompressive surgery. Hospital safety-net burden was designated as low (LBH), medium (MBH), or high (HBH) based on the proportion of inpatient admissions that were billed as Medicaid, self-pay, or charity care. Etiologies of CES were classified as degenerative, neoplastic, trauma, and infectious. Significance was defined at p < 0.01. RESULTS: A total of 5607 admissions were included in this analysis. HBHs were more likely than LBHs to treat patients who were Black, Hispanic, on Medicaid, or had a traumatic CES etiology (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical factors treatment at an HBH was not associated with greater inpatient adverse events (p = 0.611) or LOS (p = 0.082), but was associated with greater inflation-adjusted admission cost (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: Emergent decompressive surgery for CES performed at SNHs is associated with greater inpatient costs, but not greater inpatient adverse events or LOS. Differences in workflows at SNHs may be the drivers of these disparities in cost and warrant further investigation.

Simple Nephrectomy in a Tertiary Care Safety Net Hospital-Patient Characteristics, Causes, Cost, and Renal Function Implications.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with simple nephrectomy at a safety net hospital with a diverse patient population and large catchment area. Simple nephrectomy is an underreported surgery. Performance of simple nephrectomy may represent a failure of management of underlying causes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of simple nephrectomies performed at a major urban safety net hospital from 2014 to 2019. Detailed demographic, surgical, and renal functional outcomes were abstracted. We assessed the medical and social factors leading to performance of simple nephrectomy and report contemporaneous perception of preventability of the simple nephrectomy by the surgeon. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent simple nephrectomy during the study period; 55% were non-white, 77% were women, and the median age at time of surgery was 46 years. The most common medical factors contributing to simple nephrectomy were stone disease in 55.3%, followed by retained ureteral stent (30.6%) and stricture (30.6%). The most common social factors were lack of insurance (58.5%), substance abuse issues (32.3%), mental health issues (24.6%), and immigration status (18.5%). In 38.8% of cases, the provider felt the surgery was preventable if medical factors leading to simple nephrectomy were properly addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Simple nephrectomy is a common surgery in the safety net hospital setting. Both medical and sociologic factors can lead to simple nephrectomy, and awareness of these factors can lead efforts to mitigate them. This review has led to the implementation of strategies to minimize occurrences of retained stents in our patients.

Unintended Consequences of Health Care Reform: Impact of Changes in Payor Mix on Patient Safety Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on patient safety metrics at the hospital level by expansion status, across varying levels of safety-net burden, and over time. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medicaid expansion has raised concerns over the influx of additional medically and socially complex populations on hospital systems. Whether increases in Medicaid and uninsured payor mix impact hospital performance metrics remains largely unknown. We sought to evaluate the effects of expansion on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-endorsed Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-90). METHODS: Three hundred fifty-eight hospitals were identified using State Inpatient Databases (2012-2015) from 3 expansions (KY, MD, NJ) and 2 nonexpansion (FL, NC) states. PSI-90 scores were calculated using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality modules. Hospital Medicaid and uninsured patients were categorized into safety-net burden (SNB) quartiles. Hospital-level, multivariate linear regression was performed to measure the effects of expansion and change in SNB on PSI-90. RESULTS: PSI-90 decreased (safety improved) over time across all hospitals (-5.2%), with comparable reductions in expansion versus nonexpansion states (-5.9% vs -4.7%, respectively; P = 0.441) and across high SNB hospitals within expansion versus nonexpansion states (-3.9% vs -5.2%, P = 0.639). Pre-ACA SNB quartile did not predict changes in PSI-90 post-ACA. However, when hospitals increased their SNB by 5%, they incurred significantly more safety events in expansion relative to nonexpansion states (+1.87% vs -14.0%, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall improvement in patient safety, increased SNB was associated with increased safety events in expansion states. Accordingly, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures may unintentionally penalize hospitals with increased SNB following Medicaid expansion.

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

Addressing the Health Needs of the Uninsured: One Community's Solution.

INTRODUCTION: Providing high-quality health care to poor and uninsured individuals has been a challenge to the US health care system for decades. Often, patients do not seek care until they are in a crisis, or they seek care at a health care system while not addressing their primary care needs. OBJECTIVE: To report on a community that has sought to change this dynamic with the development of an all-volunteer practitioner-run clinic model. METHODS: Perspective on a successful volunteer-run safety-net clinic. RESULTS: Volunteers in Medicine on Hilton Head Island, SC, provides free health care, with more than 28,000 eligible patient visits annually, for the underserved population. This clinic is self-funded through donations and charity events and accepts no federal money. The patients are not asked to pay a fee for service. Most medical specialties are represented at the clinic, and many partnerships are in place for referrals for more advanced procedures such as surgery. All health care clinicians are volunteers, including physicians, nurses, dentists, and mental health professionals. DISCUSSION: The quality of care meets or exceeds national recommendations on many measurements, including mammography and Papanicolaou test screening rates. CONCLUSION: Safety-net clinics such as Volunteers in Medicine are a needed and viable option to the provision of health care to the vulnerable, often unseen members of society.

Outcomes Among Minority Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in a Safety-net Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes continue to improve, but they vary significantly by race and ethnicity. We hypothesize that these disparities arise from unequal access to care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Harris Health System (HHS) is an integrated health delivery network that provides medical care to the underserved, predominantly minority population of Harris County, Texas. As the largest HHS facility and an affiliate of Baylor College of Medicine's Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ben Taub Hospital (BTH) delivers cancer care through multidisciplinary subspecialty that prioritize access to care, adherence to evidence-based clinical pathways, integration of supportive services, and mitigation of financial toxicity. We performed a retrospective analysis of minority patients diagnosed with and treated for metastatic CRC at BTH between January 2010 and December 2012. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared with survival curves from randomized control trials reported during that time period. RESULTS: We identified 103 patients; 40% were black, 49% were Hispanic, and 12% were Asian or Middle Eastern. Thirty-five percent reported a language other than English as their preferred language. Seventy-four percent of patients with documented coverage status were uninsured. Eighty-four percent of patients received standard chemotherapy with a clinician-reported response rate of 63%. Overall survival for BTH patients undergoing chemotherapy was superior to that of subjects enrolled in the CRYSTAL (Cetuximab Combined with Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer) trial (median, 24.0 vs. 19.9 months; P = .014). CONCLUSION: HHS provides a health delivery infrastructure through which minority patients with socioeconomic challenges experience clinical outcomes comparable with highly selected patients enrolled in randomized control trials. Efforts to resolve CRC disparities should focus on improving access of at-risk populations to high-quality comprehensive cancer care.

The Financial Effect of Medicare Coverage Design and Safety Net Options for Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: National spending on specialty medications accounted for approximately $193 billion in 2016. The coverage design for Medicare Parts B and D has shifted medication costs to patients, which may prohibit patients from starting or maintaining therapy due to affordability. As a result, patients have enrolled in safety net financial options, such as patient assistance and foundation programs. Safety net options may provide savings not otherwise realized by Medicare; however, they may have a negative financial effect on health systems and pharmaceutical manufacturers. OBJECTIVES: To (a) quantify financial savings to Medicare as a result of patient enrollment in patient assistance programs and (b) quantify the financial effect of safety net options for patients, manufacturers, and the academic medical center that participated in this study. METHODS: A single-center, nonrandomized, retrospective pilot study of Medicare beneficiaries was conducted. Patients who were prescribed hematology/oncology specialty medications and enrolled in safety net options between July 2015 and June 2017 were included. Investigators collected data related to fill history, drug cost, and prescription coverage. The primary outcome was the overall cost savings to Medicare as a result of patient enrollment in patient assistance programs. Secondary outcomes included total patient out-of-pocket savings as a result of foundation copayment support, financial effect on manufacturers as a result of patient assistance programs, and health system revenue impact as a result of safety net options. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: This study included 114 patients. Medicare saved $5,083,816.83 over 2 years as a result of patient assistance programs. Eight foundations provided $240,350.04 in patient insurance copayments. Nine manufacturers provided 2,243 free drug doses, valued at $3,379,032.34. The participating medical center missed the opportunity for $6,481,543.55 in revenue due to patient assistance programs. CONCLUSIONS: The participating medical center's efforts to improve access to oncology care took considerable time and resources. These activities, as well as unreimbursed infusion services, were costs to the medical center that may not be recognized by Medicare. Manufacturers also supported patient access through their sponsored patient assistance programs. The use of these services and safety net options resulted in cost savings to Medicare and their beneficiaries. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Findings from this study were part of a podium research presentation at the Great Lakes Pharmacy Residency Conference; April 25, 2018; West Lafayette, IN.

Evaluation of an Intervention to Reduce Low-Value Preoperative Care for Patients Undergoing Cataract Surgery at a Safety-Net Health System.

Importance: Preoperative testing for cataract surgery epitomizes low-value care and still occurs frequently, even at one of the nation's largest safety-net health systems. Objective: To evaluate a multipronged intervention to reduce low-value preoperative care for patients undergoing cataract surgery and analyze costs from various fiscal perspectives. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study took place at 2 academic safety-net medical centers, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California (LAC-USC) (intervention, n = 469) and Harbor-UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) (control, n = 585), from April 13, 2015, through April 12, 2016, with 12 additional months (April 13, 2016, through April 13, 2017) to assess sustainability (intervention, n = 1002; control, n = 511). To compare pre- and postintervention vs control group utilization and cost changes, logistic regression assessing time-by-group interactions was used. Interventions: Using plan-do-study-act cycles, a quality improvement nurse reviewed medical records and engaged the anesthesiology and ophthalmology chiefs with data on overuse; all 3 educated staff and trainees on reducing routine preoperative care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of patients undergoing cataract surgery with preoperative medical visits, chest x-rays, laboratory tests, and electrocardiograms. Costs were estimated from LAC-USC's financially capitated perspective, and costs were simulated from fee-for-service (FFS) health system and societal perspectives. Results: Of 1054 patients, 546 (51.8%) were female (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [11.1] years). Preoperative visits decreased from 93% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 89% to 91% in the control group (between-group difference, -71%; 95% CI, -80% to -62%). Chest x-rays decreased from 90% to 24% in the intervention group and increased from 75% to 83% in the control group (between-group difference, -75%; 95% CI, -86% to -65%). Laboratory tests decreased from 92% to 37% in the intervention group and decreased from 98% to 97% in the control group (between-group difference, -56%; 95% CI, -64% to -48%). Electrocardiograms decreased from 95% to 29% in the intervention group and increased from 86% to 94% in the control group (between-group difference, -74%; 95% CI, -83% to -65%). During 12-month follow-up, visits increased in the intervention group to 67%, but chest x-rays (12%), laboratory tests (28%), and electrocardiograms (11%) remained low (P < .001 for all time-group interactions in both periods). At LAC-USC, losses of $42 241 in year 1 were attributable to intervention costs, and 3-year projections estimated $67 241 in savings. In a simulation of a FFS health system at 3 years, $88 151 in losses were estimated, and for societal 3-year perspectives, $217 322 in savings were estimated. Conclusions and Relevance: This intervention was associated with sustained reductions in low-value preoperative testing among patients undergoing cataract surgery and modest cost savings for the health system. The findings suggest that reducing low-value care may be associated with cost savings for financially capitated health systems and society but also with losses for FFS health systems, highlighting a potential barrier to eliminating low-value care.

How Have Hospital Pricing Practices for Surgical Episodes of Care Responded to Affordable CareAct-Related Medicaid Expansion?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) has affected hospital pricing practices for surgical episodes of care. METHODS: Given that safety net hospitals would be more vulnerable to decreasing reimbursement due to an increase in proportion of Medicaid patients, we utilized the Premier Healthcare Database to compare institutional charge-to-cost ratio (CCR) in safety net hospitals vs nonsafety net hospitals for 8 index urologic surgery procedures during the period from 2012 to 2015. The effect of Medicaid expansion on CCR was assessed through difference-in-differences analysis. RESULTS: CCR among safety net hospitals increased from 4.06 to 4.30 following ACA-related Medicaid expansion. This did not significantly differ from the change among nonsafety net hospitals, which was from 4.00 to 4.38 (P = .086). The census division with the highest degree of Medicaid expansion experienced a smaller increase in CCR among safety net hospitals relative to nonsafety net (P < .0001). CCR increased by a greater degree in safety net hospitals compared to nonsafety net in the census division where Medicaid expansion was the least prevalent (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Safety net hospitals have not preferentially increased CCR in response to ACA-related Medicaid expansion. Census divisions where safety net hospitals did increase CCR more than their nonsafety net counterparts do not correspond to those where Medicaid expansion was most prevalent. This could indicate that, despite being more vulnerable to an increased proportion of more poorly reimbursing Medicaid patients, safety net hospitals have not reacted by increasing charges to private payers.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics.

STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program within eight federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon and California promoting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with appropriate colonoscopy follow-up. Results are presented of a cost-effectiveness analysis of STOP CRC. Organization staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets, assigning labor hours by intervention activity and job-specific wage rates. Non-labor costs were from study data. Data were collected over February 2014-February 2016; analyses were performed in 2016-2017. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using completed FITs adjusted for number of screening-eligible patients (SEPs), as the effectiveness measure were calculated overall and by organization. Intervention delivery costs totaled $305 K across eight organizations (range: $10.2 K-$110 K). Overall delivery cost per SEP was $14.43 (range: $10.37-$19.10). The largest cost category across organizations was implementation, specifically mailing preparation. The overall ICER was $483 per SEP-adjusted completed FIT (range: $96-$1021 among organizations with positive effectiveness). Lagged data accounting for implementation delay produced comparable results. The costs of colonoscopies following abnormal FITs decreased the overall ICER to S409 because usual care clinics generated more such colonoscopies than intervention clinics. Using lagged data, follow-up colonoscopies increase the ICER by 4.3% to $460. Results indicate the complex implications for cost-effectiveness of implementing standard CRC screening within a pragmatic setting involving FQHCs with varied patient populations, clinical structures, and resources. Performance variation across organizations emphasizes the need for future evaluations that inform the introduction of efficient CRC screening to underserved populations.

Assessing the Quality of Microvascular Breast Reconstruction Performed in the Urban Safety-Net Setting: A Doubly Robust Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve vulnerable populations; however, care delivery may be of lower quality. Microvascular immediate breast reconstruction, relative to other breast reconstruction subtypes, is sensitive to the performance of safety-net hospitals and an important quality marker. The authors' aim was to assess the quality of care associated with safety-net hospital setting. METHODS: The 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent microvascular immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Primary outcomes of interest were rates of medical complications, surgical inpatient complications, and prolonged length of stay. A doubly-robust approach (i.e., propensity score and multivariate regression) was used to analyze the impact of patient and hospital-level characteristics on outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 858 patients constituted our analytic cohort following propensity matching. There were no significant differences in the odds of surgical and medical inpatient complications among safety-net hospital patients relative to their matched counterparts. Black (OR, 2.95; p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (OR, 2.623; p = 0.032) had higher odds of surgical inpatient complications. Safety-net hospitals (OR, 1.745; p = 0.005), large bedsize hospitals (OR, 2.170; p = 0.023), and Medicaid patients (OR, 1.973; p = 0.008) had higher odds of prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net hospitals had comparable odds of adverse clinical outcomes but higher odds of prolonged length of stay, relative to non-safety-net hospitals. Institution-level deficiencies in staffing and clinical processes of care might underpin the latter. Ongoing financial support of these institutions will ensure delivery of needed breast cancer care to economically disadvantaged patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Delays in Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Safety-Net Population Profile.

Background: Timely detection and treatment of breast cancer is important in optimizing survival and minimizing recurrence. Given disparities in breast cancer outcomes based on socioeconomic status, we examined time to diagnosis and treatment in a safety-net hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with breast cancer diagnosed between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012 (N=120). We limited our analytic sample to patients with nonrecurrent, primary stage 0-III breast cancer (N=105) and determined intervals from presentation to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment, last surgery to chemotherapy initiation, and last surgery to start of radiation therapy (RT). Using logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted odds of receiving timely treatment (< median time) versus more delayed treatment (≥ median time) as a function of age, language, ethnicity, insurance, Charlson comorbidity index, disease stage, method of first presentation (screening mammography vs care provider), symptoms at presentation, and type of surgical treatment. Results: Patients aged 55 to 64 years accounted for most of the sample (n=37; 35.2%). Median time from presentation to diagnosis (23 days), time from diagnosis to first treatment, and time from surgery to chemotherapy initiation fell within intervals published in the literature; median time from last surgery to start of RT was greater than recommended intervals. Factors significantly associated with longer intervals than median time included stage, method of presentation, language, surgical treatment, insurance, and ethnicity. Conclusions: Patients in this safety-net setting experienced acceptable diagnosis and treatment intervals, except for time to RT. Focused interventions that help care providers access imaging quickly for their symptomatic patients could improve time to diagnosis. Concentrating additional efforts on non-English-speaking, Hispanic patients and those who need to receive RT could improve time to treatment.

Building and Scaling-up California Quits: Supporting Health Systems Change for Tobacco Treatment.

The California Tobacco Control Program is the longest standing, publicly funded tobacco control program in the U.S. California's adult smoking rate declined from 23.7% (1989) to 11% (2016) but California still has more than 3 million smokers dispersed over 58 counties, requiring a coordinated approach to further tobacco control. Early California Tobacco Control Program success is rooted in public health policy strategies and a statewide media campaign that shifted social norms. In 2009, concepts for a coordinated approach were introduced by the California Tobacco Control Program in the state's first tobacco quit plan. The state quit plan called for public health's tobacco control programs to engage healthcare systems and insurers to work more directly with the California Smoker's Helpline (Helpline). With California's Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program expansion and the implementation of electronic medical record systems, health care plans and providers received additional support for system changes. Simultaneous with these changes, coordinated tobacco control efforts began, including California's Medi-Cal Incentives to Quit Smoking project (2012-2015). In the Medi-Cal Incentives to Quit Smoking project, safety-net providers and Medi-Cal plans were outreached and engaged to promote incentives for Medi-Cal members to utilize Helpline services. In another effort, UC Quits (2013-2015), the five University of California health systems used electronic medical record tools to promote tobacco treatments and electronic referrals to the Helpline. Now, as tobacco prevention is increasingly prioritized for quality improvement, California Tobacco Control Program is funding CA Quits, a statewide tobacco-cessation learning collaborative and technical assistance resource to promote integration of tobacco treatment services and quality improvement activities into safety-net health systems. CA Quits, in coordination with the Helpline, will connect public health departments, Medi-Cal plans, and safety-net providers to accelerate health systems change for tobacco-cessation treatment throughout the state. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Advancing Smoking Cessation in California's Medicaid Population, which is sponsored by the California Department of Public Health.

Accurate Measurement In California's Safety-Net Health Systems Has Gaps And Barriers.

Patient safety in ambulatory care has not been routinely measured. California implemented a pay-for-performance program in safety-net hospitals that incentivized measurement and improvement in key areas of ambulatory safety: referral completion, medication safety, and test follow-up. We present two years of program data (collected during July 2015-June 2017) and show both suboptimal performance in aspects of ambulatory safety and questionable reliability in data reporting. Performance was better in areas that required limited coordination or patient engagement-for example, annual medication monitoring versus follow-up after high-risk mammograms. Health care systems that lack seamlessly integrated electronic health records and patient registries encountered barriers to reporting reliable ambulatory safety data, particularly for measures that integrated multiple data elements. These data challenges precluded accurate performance measurement in many areas. Policy makers and safety advocates need to support the development of information systems and measures that facilitate the accurate ascertainment of the health systems, patients, and clinical tasks at greatest risk for ambulatory safety failures.