Formas de gobernar la vida en la calle durante la pandemia: discursos, tecnologías y prácticas / Ways of governing street life during the pandemic: discourses, technologies, and practices

RESUMEN El artículo presenta un análisis basado en diversas fuentes de una encuesta nacional realizada con el equipo de Consultorios en la Calle en Brasil sobre la población en situación de calle y la pandemia de Covid-19. A través de ciertos principios ético-políticos y apuestas metodológicas, dirigimos nuestra mirada al discurso sobre quién vive y trabaja en las calles durante la pandemia, entrecruzando el discurso y la experiencia. De esta manera, buscamos desvelar las relaciones de poder, desde la perspectiva de la gubernamentalidad y la biopolítica, que permiten mostrar los modos de gobierno encarnados en la calle -principalmente a partir de las medidas de aislamiento y distanciamiento social- para tensionar el surgimiento de la noción de población en situación de calle, en este escenario pandémico. Por último, discutimos nociones de precariedad que circunscriben la vida en la calle como condición compartida, en busca de pistas sobre formas de resistencia y el derecho a aparecer.

ABSTRACT Drawing on multiple sources, this article presents an analysis of a national survey implemented by Street Clinic teams in Brazil on the homeless population and the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the lens of certain ethical-political principles and methodological decisions, we focus our analysis on discourses about who lives and works on the streets during the pandemic, connecting discourse with experience. From the perspective of governmentality and biopolitics, we seek to shed light on power relations that reveal modes of government embodied at the street level - mainly related to isolation measures and social distancing - to create tensions surrounding the emergence of the notion of the homeless population in the midst of the pandemic. We conclude with a discussion of the precariousness that circumscribes life on the streets as a shared condition, and search for ways to comprehend forms of resistance and the right to exist.

Trends in smoking documentation rates in safety net clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of provider incentive policy on smoking status documentation. DATA SOURCES: Primary data were extracted from structured electronic medical records (EMRs) from 15 community health centers (CHCs). STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational study of data from 2006 to 2013, assessing changes in documentation of smoking status over time. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted structured EMR data for patients age 18 and older with at least one primary care visit. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Rates of documented smoking status rose from 30 percent in 2006 to 90 percent in 2013; the largest increase occurred from 2011 to 2012 following policy changes (21.3% [95% CI, 8.2%, 34.4%] from the overall trend). Rates varied by clinic and across patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of smoking status improved markedly after introduction of new federal standards. Further improvement in documentation is still needed, especially for males, nonwhite patients, those using opioids, and HIV + patients. More research is needed to study whether changes in documentation lead to improvements in counseling, cessation, and patient outcomes.

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.

The Affordable Care Act Decreased the Proportion of Uninsured Patients in a Safety Net Orthopaedic Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was approved in 2010, substantially altering the economics of providing and receiving healthcare services in the United States. One of the primary goals of this legislation was to expand insurance coverage for under- and uninsured residents. Our objective was to examine the effect of the ACA on the insurance status of patients at a safety net clinic. Our institution houses a safety net clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, our study allows us to accurately examine the magnitude of the effect on insurance status in safety net orthopaedic clinics. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Did the ACA result in a decrease in the number of uninsured patients at a safety net orthopaedic clinic that provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for the uninsured in the state? (2) Did the proportion of patients insured after passage of the ACA differ across age or demographic groups in one state? METHODS: We retrospectively examined our longitudinally maintained adult orthopaedic surgery clinic database from January 2009 to March 2015 and collected visit and demographic data, including zip code income quartile. Based on the data published by the Rhode Island Department of Health, our clinic provides the dominant majority of orthopaedic care for uninsured patients in our state. Therefore, examination of the changes in the proportion of insurance status in our clinic allows us to assess the effect of the ACA on the state level. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine the relationship between demographic variables and insurance status. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs were calculated for the proportion of uninsured visits. The proportion of uninsured visits before and after implementation of the ACA was evaluated with an interrupted time-series analysis. The reduction in the proportion of patients without insurance between demographic groups (ie, race, gender, language spoken, and income level) also was compared using an interrupted time-series design. RESULTS: There was a 36% absolute reduction (95% CI, 35%-38%; p < 0.001) in uninsured visits (73% relative reduction; 95% CI, 71%-75%; p < 0.001). There was an immediate 28% absolute reduction (95% CI, 21%-34%; p < 0.001) at the time of ACA implementation, which continued to decline thereafter. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, race, age, and income level, we found that patients who were white, men, younger than 65 years, and seen after January 2014 were more likely to have insurance than patients of other races, women, older patients, and patients treated before January 2014. CONCLUSIONS: After the ACA was implemented, the proportion of patients with health insurance at our safety net adult orthopaedic surgery clinic increased substantially. The reduction in uninsured patients was not equal across genders, races, ages, and incomes. Future studies may benefit from identifying barriers to insurance acquisition in these subpopulations. The results of this study could affect orthopaedic practices in the United States by guiding policy decisions regarding health care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Vulnerable Hospitals and Cancer Surgery Readmissions: Insights into the Unintended Consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: Penalties from the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program can push financially strained, vulnerable patient-serving hospitals into additional hardship. In this study, we quantified the association between vulnerable hospitals and readmissions and examined the respective contributions of patient- and hospital-related factors. METHODS: A total of 110,857 patients who underwent major cancer operations were identified from the 2004-2011 State Inpatient Database of California. Vulnerable hospitals were defined as either self-identified safety net hospitals (SNHs) or hospitals with a high percentage of Medicaid patients (high Medicaid hospitals [HMHs]). We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association between vulnerable hospitals and readmission. Patient and hospital contributions to the elevation in odds of readmission were assessed by comparing estimates from models with different subsets of predictors. RESULTS: Of the 355 hospitals, 13 were SNHs and 31 were HMHs. After adjusting for Hospital Readmission Reduction Program variables, SNHs had higher 30-day (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.18-1.47), 90-day (OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18-1.38), and repeated readmissions (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.49); HMHs also had higher 30-day (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32), 90-day (OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.16-1.42), and repeated readmissions (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54). Compared with patient characteristics, hospital factors accounted for a larger proportion of the increase in odds of readmission among SNHs (60% to 93% vs 24% to 39%), but a smaller proportion among HMHs (9% to 15% vs 60% to 115%). CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable status of hospitals is associated with higher readmission rates after major cancer surgery. These findings reinforce the call to account for socioeconomic variables in risk adjustments for hospitals who serve a disproportionate share of disadvantaged patients.

The impact of specialty pharmaceuticals as drivers of health care costs.

The pharmaceutical industry is shifting its focus from blockbuster small molecules to specialty pharmaceuticals. Specialty pharmaceuticals are novel drugs and biologic agents that require special handling and ongoing monitoring, are administered by injection or infusion, and are sold in the marketplace by a small number of distributors. They are frequently identified by having a cost to payers and patients of $600 or more per treatment. The total costs of the new agents are likely to have a substantial impact on overall health care costs and on patients during the next decade, unless steps are taken to align competing interests. We examine the economic and policy issues related to specialty pharmaceuticals, taking care to consider the impact on patients. We assess the role of cost-sharing provisions, legislation that is promoting realignment within the market, the role of biosimilars in price competition, and the potential for novel drug development paradigms to help bend the cost curve. The economic aspects of this analysis highlight the need for a far-reaching discussion of potential novel approaches to innovation pathways in our quest for both affordability and new technology.