Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in Southern States.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion impacted patients when assessed at a national level. However, of the 32 states that expanded Medicaid, only three were Southern states. Whether results apply to Southern states that share similar geopolitical perspectives remains elusive. We aimed to assess the impact of Medicaid expansion on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in 8 Southern states in the US. STUDY DESIGN: We identified uninsured or Medicaid patients (age 40 to 64 years) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2011 to 2018 in Southern states from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries-Cancer in North America Research Dataset. Medicaid-expanded states ([MES], Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas) were compared with non-MES ([NMES], Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma) using multivariate logistic regression and differences-in-differences analyses during pre- and postexpansion periods; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 21,974 patients, patients in MES had increased odds of Medicaid insurance by 43% (odds ratio 1.43, p < 0.01) and decreased odds of distant-stage disease by 7% (odds ratio 0.93, p = 0.03). After Medicaid expansion, Medicaid patients increased by 10.6% in MES (Arkansas, Kentucky), in contrast to a 1.3% decrease in NMES (differences-in-differences 11.9%, p < 0. 0001, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, rural-urban status, and poverty status). MES (Arkansas, Kentucky) had 2.3% fewer patients diagnosed with distant-stage disease compared with a 0.5% increase in NMES (differences-in-differences 2.8%, p = 0.01, after adjustment). Patients diagnosed in MES had higher odds of receiving treatment (odds ratio 2.27, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike NMES, MES experienced increased Medicaid insured, increased treatment, and decreased distant-stage disease at diagnosis. Medicaid expansion in the South leads to earlier and more comprehensive treatment of breast cancer.

The addition of a nurse practitioner to an inpatient surgical team results in improved use of resources.

BACKGROUND: Resident work hour restrictions and changes in reimbursement may lead to an adverse effect on the continuity of care of a patient after discharge. This study analyzes whether adding a nurse practitioner (NP) to a busy inpatient surgery service would improve patient care after discharge. METHODS: In 2007, a NP joined a team of 3 surgery attendings. She coordinated the discharge plan and communicated with patients after discharge. We reviewed the records of patients 1 year before (N = 415) and 1 year after (N = 411) the NP joined the team. The discharge courses of the patients were reviewed, and an unnecessary emergency room (ER) visit was defined as an ER visit that did not result in an inpatient admission. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically similar with regard to age, race, acuity of the operation, duration of hospital stay, and hospital readmissions. Telephone communication between nurses and discharged patients was 846 calls before the NP and 1,319 calls after the NP, representing an increase of 64% (P < .0001). Visiting nurse, physical therapy, or occupational therapy services were rendered to only 25% of patients before the NP compared to 39% after (P < .0001). There were more unnecessary ER visits before the NP (103/415; 25%) compared to after (54/411; 13%) (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Adding a NP to our inpatient surgery service led to an overall improvement in the use of resources and a 50% reduction in unnecessary ER visits. This study shows that the addition of a NP not only improves continuity of care on discharge but also has the potential to yield financial benefits for the hospital.