Crowdfunding for Gender-Affirming Mastectomy: Balancing Fundraising With Loss of Privacy.

INTRODUCTION: Limitations in insurance coverage may cause patients to turn to crowdfunding to raise money for gender-affirming procedures. In this study, we analyze the impact of Medicaid insurance coverage on gender-affirming mastectomy campaigns posted on GoFundMe.com. METHODS: Between March 1 and 12, 2021, we accessed GoFundMe.com to analyze available campaigns requesting monetary contributions for gender-affirming mastectomy. Campaigns were identified using the search term "top surgery" followed by the state's name. Duplicate campaigns, campaigns whose primary goal was not gender-affirming mastectomy, and ongoing campaigns were excluded. Campaigns were then categorized according to their state's coverage of gender-affirming surgery: explicit exclusion (EE), explicit inclusion (EI), or no explicit statement of gender-affirming care. We collected data on the number of donors and shares, the fundraising goal, and the total amount raised for each campaign. Common themes within campaign narratives were identified and assessed by each reviewer. Finally, we collected data on the photographs posted by campaign creators. RESULTS: Our search yielded 790 campaigns, with an overall mean of 58 ± 99 donors and 212 ± 288 shares. The mean fundraising goal and amount raised among all campaigns were $6811 ± $5027 and $2579 ± $3072, respectively. Fundraising goals were most likely to be met in an EI state than an EE state (26.3% vs 8.1%; P < 0.001). The mean amount sought was highest in EE states and lowest in EI states, whereas the mean amount raised was lowest in EE states and highest in EI states. Of the campaigns, 97.1% mentioned personal or situational characteristics in the narrative section; 16.2% of all campaigns expressed negative feelings about posting on GoFundMe.com to raise money for their surgeries. CONCLUSION: Disparities in health care coverage of gender-affirming surgeries were seen between state categories, with a decreased need for crowdfunding in states explicitly including coverage of gender-affirming surgery. Many transgender patients used crowdfunding to pay for transition-related health care costs, relying on the kindness of strangers and their social network at the expense of their personal privacy. Expansion of legislative coverage of gender-affirming surgeries may alleviate some of this financial burden and reduce transgender patients' reliance on crowdfunding campaigns.

Geographic disparities in access to scalp cooling for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced alopecia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia is psychologically challenging for patients undergoing cancer treatment, and scalp cooling has been shown to prevent or decrease the hair loss. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether access to scalp cooling varies by geographic area in the United States. METHODS: Cancer treatment centers offering scalp cooling were identified using data from the Rapunzel Project. Medicare claims data were queried to evaluate the number of chemotherapy infusions occurring in each zip code in the United States. Geographic distribution of chemotherapy infusions and scalp cooling centers was determined using ArcGIS software. The average distance from the geographic center of all 5-digit zip codes in which chemotherapy infusions occur to the nearest scalp cooling center was calculated in miles. RESULTS: There are 366 chemotherapy infusion centers in the United States that offer scalp cooling. Overall, 43.9% of Medicare-billed chemotherapy infusions in the United States occur in zip codes less than 12.5 miles from a scalp cooling center, 24.8% occur between 12.5 and 49.9 miles away, and 31.3% occur more than 50 miles away. LIMITATIONS: Our results are only generalizable to patients seen at Medicare-accepting institutions in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities affect which patients can access scalp cooling therapy, and implementation in suburban and rural areas would increase access for patients who wish to preserve their hair while undergoing chemotherapy.

The ALT-70 cellulitis model maintains predictive value at 24 and 48 hours after presentation.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis has many potential mimickers, and its misdiagnosis often leads to unnecessary hospitalizations and higher health care costs. The ALT-70 predictive model offers an objective tool to help differentiate between cellulitis and other clinically similar conditions at the time of initial emergency department (ED) presentation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the ALT-70 predictive model at 24 and 48 hours following ED presentation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our prior cohort and expanded our data collection to include data at 24 and 48 hours after initial ED presentation. We compared classification measures for the ALT-70 at the time of initial ED presentation, 24 hours after presentation, and 48 hours after presentation. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in median ALT-70 score between patients with true cellulitis and those with mimickers of cellulitis at all time points. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ALT-70 score was similar across all 3 time points. LIMITATIONS: Single-center design may reduce generalizability. CONCLUSION: At 24 and 48 hours, the ALT-70 performed similarly to the way it performed at the time of initial ED presentation, allowing for its use in a wider array of clinical settings.

Prevalence and Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest in Dermatology Patient Advocacy Organizations.

Importance: Patient advocacy organizations are nonprofit organizations that represent patients with medical conditions. Although these organizations may increase disease awareness and influence health care policy, reports have suggested financial relationships between organizations and drug, device, and biotechnology companies, which may lead to potential conflicts of interest. The extent of these conflicts has not been explored among patient advocacy organizations in dermatology. Objective: To examine potential financial conflicts of interest and characterize disclosure practices among dermatology patient advocacy organizations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of the largest dermatology patient advocacy organizations using the Kaiser Health News database acquired data on total revenue from each organization's Form 990 for the year 2015. Tax forms and annual reports from 2017 were used for 2 organizations that were missing donor information for 2015. Annual reports, websites, and LinkedIn profiles were manually examined to ascertain donations and determine disclosure practices pertaining to financial support and board membership. Main Outcomes and Measures: The amount and minimum proportion of donations attributable to industry sponsorship among organizations as well as the proportion of organizations disclosing (1) industry-sponsored financial support, (2) the amount of industry-derived donations, and (3) current and past relationships between governing board members and industry sponsors. Results: This study identified 24 dermatology patient advocacy organizations with annual revenues that exceeded $500 000. Of these, 5 (21%) had total donations that exceeded $5 million and 4 (17%) reported industry donations that exceeded $500 000. Two organizations (8%) reported having at least 40% of total donations from industry sponsorship. Overall, 17 organizations (71%) reported receiving donations from industry on the annual report or the website and 12 (50%) reported the amount of donations in ranges. None of the organizations reported the exact amount or use of donations. On the basis of annual reports and websites, 3 organizations (13%) reported having a current or former industry executive on the organization's governing board. When this search was replicated using LinkedIn, this figure was at least 54%. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest inconsistent disclosure of industry-derived financial support and board membership that may represent conflicts of interest. Policies that support the transparency and consistency of disclosure practices between industry and patient advocacy organizations appear to be needed to fully characterize the extent of conflicts of interest among patient advocacy organizations in dermatology and maintain trust in these important institutions.