Association between vision impairment and increased prevalence of falls in older US adults.

BACKGROUND: Vision impairment (VI) is associated with falls in older adults. However, past studies have relied on geographically constrained samples with limited generalizability or self-reports of visual difficulty. To date, there have not been nationally representative studies on the association of objective measures of visual function and falls outcomes. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from Round 11 of National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a nationally representative panel study of age-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (N = 2951). We performed Poisson regression to calculate the prevalence and prevalence ratio (PR) of >1 fall in the past year, any fall in the past month, fear of falling (FoF), and activity limitation due to FoF as a function of distance visual acuity, near visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. Models were adjusted for demographic and health covariates and were weighted to make nationally representative parameter estimates. RESULTS: The weighted proportion of participants with VI was 27.6% (95% CI, 25.4%-29.9%). Individuals with any VI had a higher prevalence of falls compared with those without VI (18.5% vs. 14.1%, PR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53). Specifically, contrast sensitivity impairment was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent falls (20.8% vs. 14.7%; PR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.01-1.67) and recent falls (17.1% vs. 9.9%; PR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94). This relationship existed even independent of near and distance visual acuity. Distance and near visual acuity were not significantly associated with falls. Having any VI was also associated with a higher prevalence of FoF (38.4% vs. 30.5%, PR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of falls is associated with poor contrast sensitivity but not with near or distance visual acuity. Findings suggest greater collaboration between geriatricians and eye care providers may be warranted to assess and address fall risk in older adults with VI.

Population prevalence of dual sensory loss in community-dwelling US adults 71 years and older: Evidence from the National Health and Aging Trends Study.

BACKGROUND: Existing estimates for the prevalence of dual sensory loss (vision and hearing) among older adults are either based on self-reported measures or aggregated for older age groups. Current and detailed estimates based on objective measures are needed for public health, clinical, and policy decision-making. METHODS: We estimated the prevalence of dual sensory loss (DSL) using National Health Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 11 data (2021). We restricted to community-dwelling adults aged ≥71 years with complete sensory testing data (N = 2579). Hearing loss was defined by a 4-frequency (0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz) pure tone average for the better-hearing ear (>25 decibel hearing level). Vision loss was defined by the presence of distance, near (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution >0.30), or contrast sensitivity loss (log contrast sensitivity <1.55). Participants were categorized into three groups: no sensory loss, single sensory loss (vision or hearing loss), and DSL (hearing and vision). Sensory loss prevalence was estimated by age group and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: In weighted analyses, among older Medicare beneficiaries (53% female, 7% Black, 6% Hispanic), 28% had no sensory loss and 22% had DSL. Prevalence of DSL increased with age. Most adults aged ≥90 years experienced DSL (59%), as opposed to single (39%) or no sensory loss (2%). DSL prevalence was greater among older adults with low education attainment (34%) and household income (43%). A higher proportion of older adults with a college education (17%), or from wealthier households (16%), had no sensory loss. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥71 years have DSL, increasing to 3 in 5 for those aged ≥90 years. Prevalence is higher among older adults with low education attainment and from low-income households, characteristics associated with low treatment. Policies increasing access and affordability of vision and hearing care could benefit millions of older Americans experiencing sensory loss.

Population Prevalence of Vision Impairment in US Adults 71 Years and Older: The National Health and Aging Trends Study.

Importance: Existing estimates of the prevalence of vision impairment (VI) in the United States are based on self-reported survey data or measures of visual function that are at least 14 years old. Older adults are at high risk for VI and blindness. There is a need for up-to-date, objectively measured, national epidemiological estimates. Objective: To present updated national epidemiological estimates of VI and blindness in older US adults based on objective visual function testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study presents a secondary data analysis of the 2021 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a population-based, nationally representative panel study of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. NHATS includes community-dwelling older adults or their proxies who complete in-person interviews; annual follow-up interviews are conducted regardless of residential status. Round 11 NHATS data were collected from June to November 2021, and data were analyzed in August 2022. Interventions: In 2021, NHATS incorporated tablet-based tests of distance and near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with habitual correction. Main Outcomes and Measures: National prevalence of impairment in presenting distance visual acuity (>0.30 logMAR, Snellen equivalent worse than 20/40), presenting near visual acuity (>0.30 logMAR, Snellen equivalent worse than 20/40), and contrast sensitivity (>1 SD below the sample mean). Prevalence estimates stratified by age and socioeconomic and demographic data were calculated. Results: In the 2021 round 11 NHATS sample, there were 3817 respondents. After excluding respondents who did not complete the sample person interview (n = 429) and those with missing vision data (n = 362), there were 3026 participants. Of these, 29.5% (95% CI, 27.3%-31.8%) were 71 to 74 years old, and 55.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-57.6%) were female respondents. The prevalence of VI in US adults 71 years and older was 27.8% (95% CI, 25.5%-30.1%). Distance and near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity impairments were prevalent in 10.3% (95% CI, 8.9%-11.7%), 22.3% (95% CI, 20.3%-24.3%), and 10.0% (95% CI, 8.5%-11.4%), respectively. Older age, less education, and lower income were associated with all types of VI. A higher prevalence of near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity impairments was associated with non-White race and Hispanic ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: More than 1 in 4 US adults 71 years and older had VI in 2021, higher than prior estimates. Differences in the prevalence of VI by socioeconomic and demographic factors were observed. These data could inform public health planning.

Self-reported dual sensory impairment, dementia, and functional limitations in Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Vision and hearing impairments often co-exist with dementia, and all are independently associated with limitations in daily activities. Our aim was to examine the association of dual sensory impairment with functional limitations, and further examine the combined estimated association of sensory impairment and dementia with these functional limitations. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a population-based cohort of Medicare beneficiaries, was performed. Participants were selected from the 2015 round. Survey weighted Poisson regression models adjusted for dementia, demographics, and health status variables examined the association of self-reported dual sensory impairment (no sensory impairment, single sensory impairment, dual sensory impairment) with scores of limitations in mobility, self-care, and household activities. Models were repeated to take into account the combined effects of dual sensory impairment and dementia. RESULTS: Overall, 7124 participants representative of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older were included. Of them, 43.9% were 75 years or older and 55.3% were female. Older adults with dual sensory impairment had greater limitations with mobility (prevalence rate ratio [PRR] = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.28-1.63), self-care (PRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.25-1.59), and household activities (PRR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.37-1.72) compared with those without sensory impairment. They also had greater limitations than those with a single sensory impairment across the different activity categories. In models taking into account the combined estimated effect of both sensory impairment and dementia, those with dual sensory impairment and dementia had greater limitations than those without sensory impairment or dementia in each category (mobility: PRR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.14, self-care: PRR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.59-2.18, household: PRR = 2.41, 95% CI = 2.09-2.77). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with dual sensory impairment had greater functional limitations compared with those without sensory impairment and those with a single sensory impairment. Strategies to improve visual and/or hearing function (e.g., sensory aids, rehabilitation) could potentially help prevent or minimize disability, even among those with dementia.

Racial And Socioeconomic Differences Affect Outcomes in Elderly Burn Patients.

BACKGROUND: Race and socioeconomic status influence outcomes for adult and pediatric burn patients, yet the impact of these factors on elderly patients (Medicare eligible, 65 years of age) remains unknown. METHODS: Data pooled from three verified burn centers from 2004 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Age, race, gender, percent total body surface area (%TBSA) burn, mortality, length of stay (LOS), LOS per %TBSA burn, and zip code which provided Census data on race, poverty, and education levels within a community were collected. Data were analyzed using logistic and generalized linear models in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). RESULTS: Our population was mainly Caucasian (63%), African American (18%), Hispanic (7.6%), and Asian (3.5%). Mean age was 76.3 ± 8.3 years, 52.5% were male. Mean %TBSA was 9 ± 13.8%; 15% of the patients sustained an inhalation injury. The mortality rate was 14.4%. Inhalation injury was significantly associated with mortality and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (p < 0.05). Race was significantly associated with socioeconomic disparities and affected LOS/TBSA, but not discharge to SNF or mortality on univariate analysis. Poverty level, education level, and insurance status (others vs. public) independently predicted SNF discharge, while median income and insurance type independently predicted LOS/TBSA. CONCLUSION: In this elderly cohort, race did not predict standard markers of burn outcome (mortality and discharge to SNF). Socioeconomic status independently predicted LOS and discharge to SNF, suggesting a relationship between socioeconomic status and recovery from a burn injury. Better understanding of racial and socioeconomic disparities is necessary to provide equitable treatment of all patients.

Temporal Changes in the Racial Gap in Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Importance: Previous studies have found marked differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest by race. Whether racial differences in survival have narrowed as overall survival has improved remains unknown. Objectives: To examine whether racial differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest have narrowed over time and if such differences could be explained by acute resuscitation survival, postresuscitation survival, and/or greater temporal improvement in survival at hospitals with higher proportions of black patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study from Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation, performed from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2014, a total of 112 139 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest who were hospitalized in intensive care units or general inpatient units were studied. Data analysis was performed from April 7, 2015, to May 24, 2017. Exposure: Race (black or white). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes were acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival. Multivariable hierarchical (2-level) regression models were used to calculate calendar-year rates of survival for black and white patients after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: Among 112 139 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, 30 241 (27.0%) were black (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [16.4] years) and 81 898 (73.0%) were white (mean [SD] age, 67.5 [15.2] years). Risk-adjusted survival improved over time in black (11.3% in 2000 and 21.4% in 2014) and white patients (15.8% in 2000 and 23.2% in 2014; P for trend <.001 for both), with greater survival improvement among black patients on an absolute (P for trend = .02) and relative scale (P for interaction = .01). A reduction in survival differences between black and white patients was attributable to elimination of racial differences in acute resuscitation survival (black individuals: 44.7% in 2000 and 64.1% in 2014; white individuals: 47.1% in 2000 and 64.0% in 2014; P for interaction <.001). Compared with hospitals with fewer black patients, hospitals with a higher proportion of black patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest achieved larger survival gains over time. Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial reduction in racial differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest has occurred that has been largely mediated by elimination of racial differences in acute resuscitation survival and greater survival improvement at hospitals with a higher proportion of black patients. Further understanding of the mechanisms of this improvement could provide novel insights for the elimination of racial differences in survival for other conditions.

Association of Hospital Prices for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With Hospital Quality and Reimbursement.

Although prices for medical services are known to vary markedly between hospitals, it remains unknown whether variation in hospital prices is explained by differences in hospital quality or reimbursement from major insurers. We obtained "out-of-pocket" price estimates for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from a random sample of US hospitals for a hypothetical patient without medical insurance. We compared hospital CABG price to (1) "fair price" estimate from Healthcare Bluebook data using each hospital's zip code and (2) Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite CABG quality score and risk-adjusted mortality rate. Of 101 study hospitals, 53 (52.5%) were able to provide a complete price estimate for CABG. The mean price for CABG was $151,271 and ranged from $44,824 to $448,038. Except for geographic census region, which was weakly associated with price, hospital CABG price was not associated with other structural characteristics or CABG volume (p >0.10 for all). Likewise, there was no association between a hospital's price for CABG with average reimbursement from major insurers within the same zip code (ρ = 0.07, p value = 0.6), Society of Thoracic Surgeoncomposite quality score (ρ = 0.08, p value = 0.71), or risk-adjusted CABG mortality (ρ = -0.03 p value = 0.89). In conclusion, the price of CABG varied more than 10-fold across US hospitals. There was no correlation between price information obtained from hospitals and the average reimbursement from major insurers in the same market. We also found no evidence to suggest that hospitals that charge higher prices provide better quality of care.