Combating climate change in the clinic: Cost-effective strategies to decrease the carbon footprint of outpatient dermatologic practice.

There have been numerous studies highlighting the negative impact that climate change has already had and is expected to continue to have on patients and their health. Notably, the health care industry has been identified as a major contributor to the global carbon footprint, highlighting a major opportunity for practitioners to intervene. However, the large majority of the literature on strategies to reduce health care's contribution to climate change focuses solely on the inpatient setting. We review a variety of strategies for clinicians in the outpatient setting to adjust their practices to combat climate change. Summarizing the best evidence from other industries and translating recommendations from the literature on inpatient practice, we identify a wide range of opportunities for intervention, many of which are easy to implement and cost-effective. These general strategies to reduce both the carbon footprint and monthly operating costs of an outpatient clinic should be of interest to any practicing physician, both dermatologists and nondermatologists.

Inequalities in Meningioma Survival: Results from the National Cancer Database.

Background Meningiomas are the second most common primary tumors of the central nervous system. However, there is a paucity of literature examining how healthcare, demographic, and socioeconomic factors impact patient outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 65,812 patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB; 2004-2012) who received treatment for their meningioma. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed with the overall five-year survival as the primary outcome, and the following factors: facility type, geography, housing area, patient insurance, sex, ethnicity, race, income, and education. The multivariate model was adjusted for patient age, co-morbidity, tumor size, behavior, and treatment strategy. Results Diagnosis and treatment at an academic/research program, private insurance, female sex, Hispanic ethnicity, and high school diploma conferred a survival advantage on both univariate and multivariate analyses. Conclusions Disparities in survival outcomes in patients with meningiomas exist across multiple healthcare, demographic, and socioeconomic factors. Additional research is needed to elucidate the genetic and environmental factors driving these inequalities.

Association of Type of Treatment Facility With Overall Survival After a Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: Patients with head and neck cancer receive care at academic comprehensive cancer programs (ACCPs), integrated network cancer programs (INCPs), comprehensive community cancer programs (CCCPs), and community cancer programs (CCPs). The type of treatment facility may be associated with overall survival. Objective: To examine whether type of treatment facility is associated with overall survival after a diagnosis of head and neck cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included patients from the National Cancer Database, a prospectively maintained, hospital-based cancer registry of patients treated at more than 1500 US hospitals. Participants were diagnosed with malignant tumors of the head and neck from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from May 1 through November 30, 2019. Exposures: Treatment at facilities classified as ACCPs, INCPs, CCCPs, or CCPs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival after diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer was the primary outcome. The secondary outcome was the odds of receiving treatment at ACCPs and INCPs vs CCCPs and CCPs. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results: A total of 525 740 patients (368 821 men [70.2%]; mean [SD] age, 63.3 [14.0] years) were diagnosed with malignant tumors of the head and neck during the study period. Among them, 36 595 patients (7.0%) were treated at CCPs; 174 658 (33.2%), at CCCPs; 232 867 (44.3%), at ACCPs; and 57 857 (11.0%), at INCPs. The median survival for patients with aerodigestive cancers was 69.2 (95% CI, 68.6-69.8) months; salivary gland cancers, 107.2 (95% CI, 103.9-110.2) months; and skin cancers, 113.2 (95% CI, 111.4-114.6) months. Improved overall survival was associated with treatment at ACCPs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.91), INCPs (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96), and CCCPs (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95) compared with CCPs. Compared with patients with private insurance, those with government insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.29-1.41), no insurance (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.16), or Medicaid (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.20) were more likely to receive treatment at ACCPs and INCPs, whereas patients with Medicare were less likely to receive treatment at ACCPs and INCPs (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97). Compared with white patients, black (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.59) and Asian (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.63) patients were more likely to receive care at ACCPs and INCPs. Compared with patients from lower-income areas, patients from high-income areas were more likely to receive treatment at ACCPs and INCPs (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.22-1.28). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that treatment at ACCPs and INCPs was associated with a better overall survival rate in patients with head and neck cancer. Key social determinants of health such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and type of insurance were associated with receiving treatment at ACCPs and INCPs.