Hearing Loss and Sociodemographic Barriers to Health Care Access Using the All of Us Research Program.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how gender and low-income status independently influence general health care access in patients with hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: National database. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss from the National Institutes of Health All of Us database were included. Data entered from May 2018 to November 2022 was analyzed. Patient demographics such as age, gender, educational level, and insurance status were assessed. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: A subset of 8875 patients (48.3% male, mean age 69) were evaluated. After multivariate analysis, female participants were more likely than male participants to report difficulty affording prescribed medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, p < .0005) and specialists (OR: 1.4, p < 0.005). Female patients were also more likely to delay care due to elder care responsibilities (OR: 2.6, p < .0005), employment obligations (OR: 1.7, p < .0005), and feelings of apprehension in seeing a provider (OR: 1.7, p < .0005). Finally, female participants reported feeling less likely to be involved in their own medical care compared to males (OR: 1.2, p < .005). Low-income (<$25,000) participants reported less likely to feel respected (OR: 3.2, p < .0005) and delivered understandable health information (OR: 2.3, p < .0005) by providers compared to participants of higher income. CONCLUSION: This work suggests that patients with hearing loss, female gender, and lower socioeconomic status independently introduce barriers to health care access and utilization. These factors should be considered in efforts to promote equity in the care of patients with hearing loss.

Health professions school applicant experiences of discrimination during interviews.

BACKGROUND: Bias pervades every aspect of healthcare including admissions, perpetuating the lack of diversity in the healthcare workforce. Admissions interviews may be a time when applicants to health profession education programs experience discrimination. METHODS: Between January and June 2021 we invited US and Canadian applicants to health profession education programs to complete a survey including the Everyday Discrimination Scale, adapted to ascertain experiences of discrimination during admissions interviews. We used chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression to determine associations between identity factors and positive responses. RESULTS: Of 1115 respondents, 281 (25.2%) reported discrimination in the interview process. Individuals with lower socioeconomic status (OR: 1.78, 95% CI [1.26, 2.52], p = 0.001) and non-native English speakers (OR: 1.76, 95% CI [1.08, 2.87], p = 0.02) were significantly more likely to experience discrimination. Half of those experiencing discrimination (139, or 49.6%) did nothing in response, though 44 (15.7%) reported the incident anonymously and 10 (3.6%) reported directly to the institution where it happened. CONCLUSIONS: Reports of discrimination are common among HPE applicants. Reforms at the interviewer- (e.g. avoiding questions about family planning) and institution-level (e.g. presenting institutional efforts to promote health equity) are needed to decrease the incidence and mitigate the impact of such events.

Transcervical Thymectomy Is the Most Cost-Effective Surgical Approach in Myasthenia Gravis.

BACKGROUND: Extended thymectomy has been proven to improve the course of myasthenia gravis. Retrospective studies demonstrate that several techniques for thymectomy achieve overlapping remission rates. We therefore compared perioperative outcomes and costs among 3 approaches to thymectomy: sternotomy, video and/or robot assisted, and transcervical. METHODS: To ensure similar study groups, we excluded patients with >4 cm or invasive tumors and those who underwent less than an extended thymectomy or concurrent procedures. Hospital costs were collected and analyzed by blinded finance personnel. RESULTS: The final study group consisted of 25 transcervical, 23 video/robot-assisted, and 14 sternotomy subjects. There was a higher incidence of myasthenia gravis in the transcervical and sternotomy groups (P < 0.001) and of thymoma in the video/robot-assisted and sternotomy groups (P = .002). Mean modified Charlson comorbidity score was higher for sternotomy (2.7 ± 2.1, mean ± SD) than transcervical (1.00 ± 0.58; P < .001) and video/robot-assisted (1.13 ± 0.97; P = .001) procedures. There was no difference in complication rates between approaches (P = 0.828). The cost of transcervical thymectomy was 45% of the cost of sternotomy (P < .001), and was 58% of the cost of video/robot-assisted (P = .018) approaches; these differences remained highly significant on multivariate analysis. Transcervical thymectomy had a shorter mean length of stay (1.2 ± 0.5 days) than median sternotomy (4.4 ± 3.5; P < .001), and video/robot-assisted thymectomy (2.4 ± 0.95; P = .045) and "bed cost" were major contributors to the cost difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transcervical thymectomy, which provides overlapping myasthenia gravis remission rates versus more invasive approaches, is equally safe and far less costly than sternotomy and video/robot-assisted approaches.

Intraoperative costs of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy can be dramatically reduced without compromising outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether surgeon selection of instrumentation and other supplies during video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATSL) can safely reduce intraoperative costs. METHODS: In this retrospective, cost-focused review of all video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery anatomic lung resections performed by 2 surgeons at a single institution between 2010 and 2014, we compared VATSL hospital costs and perioperative outcomes between the surgeons, as well as costs of VATSL compared with thoracotomy lobectomy (THORL). RESULTS: A total of 100 VATSLs were performed by surgeon A, and 70 were performed by surgeon B. The preoperative risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 groups of surgeries. Mean VATSL total hospital costs per case were 24% percent greater for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P = .0026). Intraoperative supply costs accounted for most of this cost difference and were 85% greater for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P < .0001). The use of nonstapler supplies, including energy devices, sealants, and disposables, drove intraoperative costs, accounting for 55% of the difference in intraoperative supply costs between the surgeons. Operative time was 25% longer for surgeon A compared with surgeon B (P < .0001), but this accounted for only 11% of the difference in total cost. Surgeon A's overall VATSL costs per case were similar to those of THORLs (n = 100) performed over the same time period, whereas surgeon B's VATSL costs per case were 24% less than those of THORLs. On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in VATSL perioperative outcomes between the 2 surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of VATSL differ substantially among surgeons and are heavily influenced by the use of disposable equipment/devices. Surgeons can substantially reduce the costs of VATSL to far lower than those of THORL without compromising surgical outcomes through prudent use of costly instruments and technologies.