Neighborhood Deprivation and Severe Maternal Morbidity in a Medicaid Population.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have examined whether neighborhood deprivation is associated with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) in already socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Little is known about to what extent neighborhood deprivation accounts for Black-White disparities in SMM. This study investigated these questions among a statewide Medicaid-insured population, a low-income population with heightened risk of SMM. METHODS: Data were from Michigan statewide linked birth records and Medicaid claims between 01/01/2016 and 12/31/2019, and were analyzed between 2022 and 2023. Neighborhood deprivation was measured with the Area Deprivation Index at census block group and categorized as low, medium, or high deprivation. Multilevel logistic models were used to examine the association between neighborhood deprivation and SMM. Fairlie nonlinear decomposition was conducted to quantify the contribution of neighborhood deprivation to SMM racial disparity. RESULTS: People in the most deprived neighborhoods had higher odds of SMM than those in the least deprived neighborhoods (aOR [95% CI]: 1.27 [1.15, 1.40]). Such association was observed in Black (aOR [95% CI]: 1.34 [1.07, 1.67]) and White (aOR [95% CI]: 1.26 [1.12, 1.42]) racial subgroups. Decomposition showed that of 57.5 (cases per 10,000) explained disparity in SMM, neighborhood deprivation accounted for 23.1 (cases per 10,000; 95% CI: 16.3, 30.0) or two-fifths (40.2%) of the Black-White disparity. Analysis on SMM excluding blood transfusion showed consistent but weaker results. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood deprivation may be used as an effective tool to identify at-risk individuals within a low-income population. Community-engaged interventions aiming at improving neighborhood conditions may be helpful to reduce both SMM prevalence and racial inequity in SMM.

Open Payments Data Analysis of General and Fellowship-trained Surgeons Receiving Industry General Payments From 2016 to 2020: Payment Disparities and COVID-19 Pandemic Impact.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize industry nonresearch payments made to general and fellowship-trained surgeons between 2016 and 2020. BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Data (OPD) reports industry payments made to physicians related to drugs and medical devices. General payments are those not associated with research. METHODS: OPD data were queried for general and fellowship-trained surgeons who received general payments from 2016 to 2020. Payments' nature, amount, company, covered product, and location were collected. Surgeons' demographics, subspecialty, and leadership roles in hospitals, societies, and editorial boards were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, 44,700 general and fellowship-trained surgeons were paid $535,425,543 in 1,440,850 general payments. The median payment was $29.18. The most frequent payments were for food and beverage (76.6%) and travel and lodging (15.6%); however, the highest dollar payments were for consulting fees ($93,128,401; 17.4%), education ($88,404,531; 16.5%), royalty or license ($87,471,238; 16.3%), and travel and lodging ($66,333,149; 12.4%). Five companies made half of all payments ($265,654,522; 49.6%): Intuitive Surgical ($128,517,411; 24%), Boston Scientific ($48,094,570; 9%), Edwards Lifesciences ($41,835,544, 7.8%), Medtronic Vascular ($33,607,136; 6.3%), and W. L. Gore & Associates ($16,626,371; 3.1%). Medical devices comprised 74.7% of payments ($399,897,217), followed by drugs and biologicals ($33,945,300; 6.3%). Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania received the most payments; however, the top dollar payments were in California ($65,702,579; 12.3%), Michigan ($52,990,904, 9.9%), Texas ($39,362,131; 7.4%), Maryland ($37,611,959; 7%), and Florida ($33,417,093, 6.2%). General surgery received the highest total payments ($245,031,174; 45.8%), followed by thoracic surgery ($167,806,514; 31.3%) and vascular surgery ($60,781,266; 11.4%). A total of 10,361 surgeons were paid >$5000, of which 1614 were women (15.6%); in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $53,446 vs $22,571; P <0.001) and thoracic surgeons received highest payments (mean, $76,381; NS, P =0.14). A total of 120 surgeons were paid >$500,000 ($203,011,672; 38%)-5 non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (4.2%) and 82 NHW (68.3%), 24 Asian (20%), 7 Hispanic (5.8%), and 2 Black (1.7%) men; in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $1,735,570 vs $684,224), and NHW men received payments double those of other men (means, $2,049,554 vs $955,368; NS, P =0.087). Among these 120 highly paid surgeons (>$500,000), 55 held hospital and departmental leadership roles, 30 were leaders in surgical societies, 27 authored clinical guidelines, and 16 served on journal editorial boards. During COVID-19, 2020 experienced half the number of payments than the preceding 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: General and fellowship-trained surgeons received substantial industry nonresearch payments. The highest-paid recipients were men. Further work is warranted in assessing how race, gender, and leadership roles influence the nature of industry payments and surgical practice. A significant decline in payments was observed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

How limitations in energy access, poverty, and socioeconomic disparities compromise health interventions for outbreaks in urban settings.

Low-income households (LIHs) have experienced increased poverty and inaccess to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting their ability to adhere to health-protective behaviors. We use an epidemiological model to show how a households' inability to adopt social distancing, owing to constraints in utility and healthcare expenditure, can drastically impact the course of disease outbreaks in five urban U.S. counties. LIHs suffer greater burdens of disease and death than higher income households, while functioning as a consistent source of virus exposure for the entire community due to socioeconomic barriers to following public health guidelines. These impacts worsened when social distancing policy could not be imposed. Health interventions combining social distancing and LIH resource protection strategies (e.g., utility and healthcare access) were the most effective in limiting virus spread for all income levels. Policies need to address the multidimensionality of energy, housing, and healthcare access for future disaster management.

It's Complicated-Adolescent Grief in the Time of Covid-19.

Presently, there is a real possibility of a second pandemic occurring: a grief pandemic. There are estimated to be over 1 million children and young people experiencing bereavement because of Covid-19. Adolescent grief is unique due to bio-psycho-social factors such as increased risk-taking, identity-formation, and limited capacity for emotional regulation. In this article, we will argue that adolescents are at increased risk of developing complicated grief during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it is vital that services are improved to recognize and address this need before secondary problems emerge, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. Complicated grief in adolescents is widely underrecognized and often misdiagnosed as a range of mental health problems, addictions, and offending behavior. For example, 25% of <20 year olds who commit suicide have experienced childhood bereavement, whilst 41% of youth offenders have experienced childhood bereavement; this is in comparison with only 4% of the general population. Many of the broader risk factors for complicated grief were already increasing prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, including increased loneliness amongst young people, and the collapse of collective structures to help people manage grief. We propose that this pandemic could be a catalyst for mental health professionals to support and nurture the caring communities emerging in this time as an essential resource to prevent the onset of a grief pandemic.