Leveraging Ethnic Backgrounds to Improve Collection of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Data.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare disparities may be exacerbated by upstream incapacity to collect high-quality and accurate race, ethnicity, and language (REaL) data. There are opportunities to remedy these data barriers. We present the Denver Health (DH) REaL initiative, which was implemented in 2021. METHODS: Denver Health is a large safety net health system. After assessing the state of REaL data at DH, we developed a standard script, implemented training, and adapted our electronic health record to collect this information starting with an individual's ethnic background followed by questions on race, ethnicity, and preferred language. We analyzed the data for completeness after REaL implementation. RESULTS: A total of 207,490 patients who had at least one in-person registration encounter before and after the DH REaL implementation were included in our analysis. There was a significant decline in missing values for race (7.9%-0.5%, p < .001) and for ethnicity (7.6%-0.3%, p < .001) after implementation. Completely of language data also improved (3%-1.6%, p < .001). A year after our implementation, we knew over 99% of our cohort's self-identified race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our initiative significantly reduced missing data by successfully leveraging ethnic background as the starting point of our REaL data collection.

A multimodal strategy to improve race/ethnic group equity in administration of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients.

Introduction: Racial and ethnic minority groups have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness, and death; however, they receive monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment at lower rates than non-Hispanic White patients. We report data from a systematic approach to improve equitable provision of COVID-19 neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment. Methods: Treatment was administered at a community health urgent care clinic affiliated with a safety-net urban hospital. The approach included a stable treatment supply, a same-day test and treat model, a referral process, patient outreach, and financial support. We analyzed the race/ethnicity data descriptively and compared proportions using a chi-square test. Results: Over 17 months, 2524 patients received treatment. Compared to the demographics of county COVID-19-positive cases, a greater proportion of patients who received mAb treatment were Hispanic (44.7% treatment vs. 36.5% positive cases, p < 0.001), a lower proportion were White Non-Hispanic (40.7% treatment vs. 46.3% positive cases, p < 0.001), equal proportion were Black (8.2% treatment vs. 7.4% positive cases, P = 0.13), and equal proportion occurred for other race patients. Discussion: Implementation of multiple systematic strategies to administer COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies resulted in an equitable race/ethnic distribution of treatment.

Total cost of care associated with opioid use disorder treatment.

The opioid epidemic in the United States disproportionately affects Medicaid beneficiaries than other groups. This results in a significant financial burden on state Medicaid programs. In this analysis, we investigate the association of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment initiation and linkage to ongoing care on overall healthcare costs of Medicaid Fee-for-Service patients. We conducted a retrospective study among adult patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) and who had a clinical encounter at a safety-net institution in Denver Colorado in 2020. Three categories of MOUD status of patients were defined: 1) identified with OUD but did not receive MOUD; 2) initiated MOUD but not linked to ongoing treatment and 3) received MOUD and linked to ongoing treatment. Our outcome variable was per-member per-month total healthcare cost. We estimated a multivariable model to test the association between healthcare cost and MOUD status, while controlling for demographic and risk classification variables. We found that in individuals with OUD who initiated MOUD treatment but were not linked to ongoing care had the highest healthcare cost, while those who were linked to ongoing MOUD treatment had the lowest healthcare cost. MOUD treatment is not only effective at addressing the significant morbidity and mortality burden of OUD but also associated with decreased financial cost, which is disproportionately incurred by Medicaid. Additional policy and care delivery changes are needed to focus efforts to improve linkage to ongoing treatment.

Effect of Values Affirmation on Reducing Racial Differences in Adherence to Hypertension Medication: The HYVALUE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stereotype threat, or the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one's social group, may contribute to racial differences in adherence to medications by decreasing patient activation to manage chronic conditions. Objective: To examine whether a values affirmation writing exercise improves medication adherence and whether the effect differs by patient race. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Hypertension and Values trial, a patient-level, blinded randomized clinical trial, compared an intervention and a control writing exercise delivered immediately prior to a clinic appointment. Of 20 777 eligible, self-identified non-Hispanic Black and White patients with uncontrolled hypertension who were taking blood pressure (BP) medications, 3891 were approached and 960 enrolled. Block randomization by self-identified race ensured balanced randomization. Patients enrolled between February 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, at 11 US safety-net and community primary care clinics, with outcomes assessed at 3 and 6 months. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: From a list of 11 values, intervention patients wrote about their most important values and control patients wrote about their least important values. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of adherence to BP medications was measured using pharmacy fill data (proportion of days covered >90%) at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The secondary outcome was systolic and diastolic BP. Patient activation to manage their health was also measured. Results: Of 960 patients, 474 (286 women [60.3%]; 256 Black patients [54.0%]; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [11.9] years) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 486 (288 women [59.3%]; 272 Black patients [56.0%]; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [12.0] years) to the control group. Baseline medication adherence was lower (318 of 482 [66.0%] vs 331 of 412 [80.3%]) and mean (SE) BP higher among Black patients compared with White patients (systolic BP, 140.6 [18.5] vs 137.3 [17.8] mm Hg; diastolic BP, 83.9 [12.6] vs 79.7 [11.3] mm Hg). Compared with baseline, pharmacy fill adherence did not differ between intervention and control groups at 3 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.57-1.43]) or at 6 months (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53-1.38]). There were also no treatment effect differences in pharmacy fill adherence by patient race (Black patients at 3 months: OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.61-1.92]; at 6 months: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.58-1.87]; White patients at 3 months: OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.33-1.44]; at 6 months: OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.24-1.27]). Immediately after the intervention, the median patient activation was higher in intervention patients than in control patients, but this difference was not statistically significant in an unadjusted comparison (75.0 [IQR, 65.5-84.8] vs 72.5 [IQR, 63.1-80.9]; P = .06). In adjusted models, the Patient Activation Measure score immediately after the intervention was significantly higher in the intervention patients than in control patients (mean difference, 2.3 [95% CI, 0.1-4.5]). Conclusions and Relevance: A values affirmation intervention was associated with higher patient activation overall but did not improve adherence or blood pressure among Black and White patients with hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03028597.

Assessing and Augmenting Predictive Models for Hospital Readmissions With Novel Variables in an Urban Safety-net Population.

BACKGROUND: The performance of existing predictive models of readmissions, such as the LACE, LACE+, and Epic models, is not established in urban safety-net populations. We assessed previously validated predictive models of readmission performance in a socially complex, urban safety-net population, and if augmentation with additional variables such as the Area Deprivation Index, mental health diagnoses, and housing access improves prediction. Through the addition of new variables, we introduce the LACE-social determinants of health (SDH) model. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult admissions from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018, at a single urban safety-net health system, assessing the performance of the LACE, LACE+, and Epic models in predicting 30-day, unplanned rehospitalization. The LACE-SDH development is presented through logistic regression. Predictive model performance was compared using C-statistics. RESULTS: A total of 16,540 patients met the inclusion criteria. Within the validation cohort (n=8314), the Epic model performed the best (C-statistic=0.71, P<0.05), compared with LACE-SDH (0.67), LACE (0.65), and LACE+ (0.61). The variables most associated with readmissions were (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) against medical advice discharge (3.19, 2.28-4.45), mental health diagnosis (2.06, 1.72-2.47), and health care utilization (1.94, 1.47-2.55). CONCLUSIONS: The Epic model performed the best in our sample but requires the use of the Epic Electronic Health Record. The LACE-SDH performed significantly better than the LACE and LACE+ models when applied to a safety-net population, demonstrating the importance of accounting for socioeconomic stressors, mental health, and health care utilization in assessing readmission risk in urban safety-net patients.

Using Values Affirmation to Reduce the Effects of Stereotype Threat on Hypertension Disparities: Protocol for the Multicenter Randomized Hypertension and Values (HYVALUE) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is a significant, modifiable contributor to uncontrolled hypertension. Stereotype threat may contribute to racial disparities in adherence by hindering a patient's ability to actively engage during a clinical encounter, resulting in reduced activation to adhere to prescribed therapies. OBJECTIVE: The Hypertension and Values (HYVALUE) trial aims to examine whether a values-affirmation intervention improves medication adherence (primary outcome) by targeting racial stereotype threat. METHODS: The HYVALUE trial is a patient-level, blinded randomized controlled trial comparing a brief values-affirmation writing exercise with a control writing exercise among black and white patients with uncontrolled hypertension. We are recruiting patients from 3 large health systems in the United States. The primary outcome is patients' adherence to antihypertensive medications, with secondary outcomes of systolic and diastolic blood pressure over time, time for which blood pressure is under control, and treatment intensification. We are comparing the effects of the intervention among blacks and whites, exploring possible moderators (ie, patients' prior experiences of discrimination and clinician racial bias) and mediators (ie, patient activation) of intervention effects on outcomes. RESULTS: This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing and data analysis is expected to begin in late 2020. Planned enrollment is 1130 patients. On the basis of evidence supporting the effectiveness of values affirmation in educational settings and our pilot work demonstrating improved patient-clinician communication, we hypothesize that values affirmation disrupts the negative effects of stereotype threat on the clinical interaction and can reduce racial disparities in medication adherence and subsequent health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The HYVALUE study moves beyond documentation of race-based health disparities toward testing an intervention. We focus on a medical condition-hypertension, which is arguably the greatest contributor to mortality disparities for black patients. If successful, this study will be the first to provide evidence for a low-resource intervention that has the potential to substantially reduce health care disparities across a wide range of health care conditions and populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03028597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03028597 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72vcZMzAB). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12498.

An investigation of associations between clinicians' ethnic or racial bias and hypertension treatment, medication adherence and blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly investigated the association of clinicians' implicit (unconscious) bias with health care disparities in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine if clinicians' implicit ethnic or racial bias is associated with processes and outcomes of treatment for hypertension among black and Latino patients, relative to white patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians completed Implicit Association Tests of ethnic and racial bias. Electronic medical records were queried for a stratified, random sample of the clinicians' black, Latino and white patients to assess treatment intensification, adherence and control of hypertension. Multilevel random coefficient models assessed the associations between clinicians' implicit biases and ethnic or racial differences in hypertension care and outcomes. MAIN MEASURES: Standard measures of treatment intensification and medication adherence were calculated from pharmacy refills. Hypertension control was assessed by the percentage of time that patients met blood pressure goals recorded during primary care visits. KEY RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-eight primary care clinicians and 4,794 patients with hypertension participated. Black patients received equivalent treatment intensification, but had lower medication adherence and worse hypertension control than white patients; Latino patients received equivalent treatment intensification and had similar hypertension control, but lower medication adherence than white patients. Differences in treatment intensification, medication adherence and hypertension control were unrelated to clinician implicit bias for black patients (P = 0.85, P = 0.06 and P = 0.31, respectively) and for Latino patients (P = 0.55, P = 0.40 and P = 0.79, respectively). An increase in clinician bias from average to strong was associated with a relative change of less than 5 % in all outcomes for black and Latino patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implicit bias did not affect clinicians' provision of care to their minority patients, nor did it affect the patients' outcomes. The identification of health care contexts in which bias does not impact outcomes can assist both patients and clinicians in their efforts to build trust and partnership.

Clinicians' implicit ethnic/racial bias and perceptions of care among Black and Latino patients.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether clinicians' explicit and implicit ethnic/racial bias is related to black and Latino patients' perceptions of their care in established clinical relationships. METHODS: We administered a telephone survey to 2,908 patients, stratified by ethnicity/race, and randomly selected from the patient panels of 134 clinicians who had previously completed tests of explicit and implicit ethnic/racial bias. Patients completed the Primary Care Assessment Survey, which addressed their clinicians' interpersonal treatment, communication, trust, and contextual knowledge. We created a composite measure of patient-centered care from the 4 subscales. RESULTS: Levels of explicit bias were low among clinicians and unrelated to patients' perceptions. Levels of implicit bias varied among clinicians, and those with greater implicit bias were rated lower in patient-centered care by their black patients as compared with a reference group of white patients (P = .04). Latino patients gave the clinicians lower ratings than did other groups (P <.0001), and this did not depend on the clinicians' implicit bias (P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: This is among the first studies to investigate clinicians' implicit bias and communication processes in ongoing clinical relationships. Our findings suggest that clinicians' implicit bias may jeopardize their clinical relationships with black patients, which could have negative effects on other care processes. As such, this finding supports the Institute of Medicine's suggestion that clinician bias may contribute to health disparities. Latinos' overall greater concerns about their clinicians appear to be based on aspects of care other than clinician bias.

Assessment of biases against Latinos and African Americans among primary care providers and community members.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed implicit and explicit bias against both Latinos and African Americans among experienced primary care providers (PCPs) and community members (CMs) in the same geographic area. METHODS: Two hundred ten PCPs and 190 CMs from 3 health care organizations in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area completed Implicit Association Tests and self-report measures of implicit and explicit bias, respectively. RESULTS: With a 60% participation rate, the PCPs demonstrated substantial implicit bias against both Latinos and African Americans, but this was no different from CMs. Explicit bias was largely absent in both groups. Adjustment for background characteristics showed the PCPs had slightly weaker ethnic/racial bias than CMs. CONCLUSIONS: This research provided the first evidence of implicit bias against Latinos in health care, as well as confirming previous findings of implicit bias against African Americans. Lack of substantive differences in bias between the experienced PCPs and CMs suggested a wider societal problem. At the same time, the wide range of implicit bias suggested that bias in health care is neither uniform nor inevitable, and important lessons might be learned from providers who do not exhibit bias.

Simultaneous control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in 2 health systems.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia have difficulty achieving control of all 3 conditions. We assessed the incidence and duration of simultaneous control of hyperglycemia, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients from 2 health care systems in Colorado. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults at Denver Health and Kaiser Permanente Colorado with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia from 2000 through 2008. Over a median of 4.0 and 4.4 years, 16% and 30% of individuals at Denver Health and Kaiser Permanente achieved the primary outcome (simultaneous control with a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL), respectively. With less strict goals (HbA(1c) <8.0%, blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <130 mg/dL), 44% and 70% of individuals at Denver Health and Kaiser Permanente achieved simultaneous control. Sociodemographic characteristics (increasing age, white ethnicity), and the presence of cardiovascular disease or other comorbidities were significantly but not strongly predictive of achieving simultaneous control in multivariable models. Simultaneous control was less likely as severity of the underlying conditions increased, and more likely as medication adherence increased. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous control of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia was uncommon and generally transient. Less stringent goals had a relatively large effect on the proportion achieving simultaneous control. Individuals who simultaneously achieve multiple treatment goals may provide insight into self-care strategies for individuals with comorbid health conditions.

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are not clinically useful predictors of refill adherence in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have identified patient characteristics or chronic diseases associated with medication adherence, the clinical utility of such predictors has rarely been assessed. We attempted to develop clinical prediction rules for adherence with antihypertensive medications in 2 healthcare delivery systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed retrospective cohort studies of hypertension registries in an inner-city healthcare delivery system (n=17 176) and a health maintenance organization (n=94 297) in Denver, Colo. Adherence was defined by acquisition of 80% or more of antihypertensive medications. A multivariable model in the inner-city system found that adherent patients (36.3% of the total) were more likely than nonadherent patients to be older, white, married, and acculturated in US society, to have diabetes or cerebrovascular disease, not to abuse alcohol or controlled substances, and to be prescribed fewer than 3 antihypertensive medications. Although statistically significant, all multivariate odds ratios were 1.7 or less, and the model did not accurately discriminate adherent from nonadherent patients (C statistic=0.606). In the health maintenance organization, where 72.1% of patients were adherent, significant but weak associations existed between adherence and older age, white race, the lack of alcohol abuse, and fewer antihypertensive medications. The multivariate model again failed to accurately discriminate adherent from nonadherent individuals (C statistic=0.576). CONCLUSIONS: Although certain sociodemographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses are statistically associated with adherence to refills of antihypertensive medications, a combination of these characteristics is not sufficiently accurate to allow clinicians to predict whether their patients will be adherent with treatment.