Elective Joint Replacement Among Medicaid Beneficiaries: Utilization and Postoperative Adverse Events by Racial and Ethnic Groups.

Hip and knee replacement have been marked by racial and ethnic disparities in both utilization and postoperative adverse events among Medicare beneficiaries, but limited knowledge exists regarding racial and ethnic differences in joint replacement care among Medicaid beneficiaries. To close this gap, this study used Medicaid claims in 2018 and described racial and ethnic differences in the utilization and postoperative adverse events of elective joint replacements among Medicaid beneficiaries. Among the 2,260,272 Medicaid beneficiaries, 5987 had an elective joint replacement in 2018. Asian (0.05%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03%-0.07%) and Hispanic beneficiaries (0.12%, 95% CI: 0.07%-0.18%) received joint replacements less frequently than American Indian and Alaska Native (0.41%, 95% CI: 0.27%-0.55%), Black (0.33%, 95% CI: 0.19%-0.48%), and White (0.37%, 95% CI: 0.25%-0.50%) beneficiaries. Black patients demonstrated the highest probability of 90-day emergency department visits (34.8%, 95% CI: 32.7%-37.0%) among all racial and ethnic groups and a higher probability of 90-day readmission (8.0%, 95% CI: 6.9%-9.0%) than Asian (3.4%, 95% CI: 0.7%-6.0%) and Hispanic patients (4.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-5.3%). These findings indicate evident disparities in postoperative adverse events across racial and ethnic groups, with Black patients demonstrating the highest probability of 90-day emergency department visits. This study represents an initial exploration of the racial and ethnic differences in joint replacement care among Medicaid beneficiaries and lay the groundwork for further investigation into contributing factors of the observed disparities.

Evaluating a stepped care model of psychological support for adults affected by adversity: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in Jordan.

BACKGROUND: The burden of common mental disorders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is growing with little known about how to allocate limited resources to reach the greatest number of people undergoing instances of significant psychological distress. We present a study protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adults with significant psychological distress (K10 score ≥20) will be randomised to receive a stepped care programme involving a self-guided course (Doing What Matters) followed by a more intensive group programme (Problem Management Plus) or the self-guided course alone, both of which will take place in addition to enhanced treatment as usual comprising of a follow-up referral session to available services within the community. We will include 800 participants. An intent-to-treat and completer analysis will explore the impact of the stepped model of care on anxiety and depression symptoms (as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HSCL-25) at 24 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include positive psychological well-being, agency, changes in patient-identified problems, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Linear mixed models will be used to assess the differential impact of the conditions over time. Analyses will focus on the primary outcome (HSCL-25) and secondary outcomes (agency subscale, WHO Well-Being Index, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule V.2.0, EQ-5D, Psychological Outcomes Profiles Scale) for both conditions, with the main outcome time point being the 3-month follow-up, relative to baseline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This will be the first randomised controlled trial to assess the benefits of a stepped model of care to addressing psychological distress in a LMIC setting. Results will provide important insights for managing limited resources to mental healthcare in these settings and will be accordingly disseminated to service providers and organisations via professional training and meetings, and via publication in relevant journals and conference presentations. We will also present these findings to the Jordanian Ministry of Health, where this institute will guide us on the most appropriate format for communication of findings, including written reports, verbal presentations and/or brochures. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Jordan School of Nursing Research Ethics Committee (number: PF.22.10). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000189820p; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Predictors for Early Liver Cancer Survival After Ablation and Surgical Resection: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify independent predictors of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality after ablation or surgical resection (SR) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), after adjusting for key confounders. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare, HCCs less than 5 cm treated with ablation or SR in 2009 to 2016 (n = 956) were identified. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression models for all-cause and cancer-specific mortality were performed including demographics, clinical factors (tumor size, medical comorbidities, and liver disease factors), social determinants of health, and treatment characteristics. We also determined the most influential predictors of survival using a random forest analysis. RESULTS: Larger tumor size (3-5 cm) is predictive of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, P = .002) and cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.59, P < .001). Furthermore, chronic kidney disease is predictive of all-cause mortality (HR 1.43, P = .013), though it is not predictive of cancer-specific death. Multiple liver disease factors are predictive of all-cause and cancer-specific mortality including portal hypertension and esophageal varices (HRs > 1, P < .05). Though Asian race is protective in univariate models, in fully adjusted, multivariable models, Asian race is not a significant protective factor. Likewise, other social determinants of health are not significantly predictive of all-cause or cancer-specific mortality. Finally, treatment with SR, in later procedure years or at high-volume centers, is protective for all-cause and cancer-specific mortality. In machine learning models, year procedure was performed, ascites, portal hypertension, and treatment choice were the most influential factors. DISCUSSION: Treatment characteristics, liver disease factors, and tumor size are more important predictors of all-cause and cancer-specific death than social determinants of health for small HCCs.

Beyond Survival: Adverse Events and Care Delivery Outcomes after Early Liver Cancer Treatment in a Nationally Representative Cohort.

PURPOSE: To compare secondary outcomes after ablation (AB), surgical resection (SR), and liver transplant (LT) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), including resource utilization and adverse event (AE) rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare, HCCs <5 cm that were treated with AB, SR, or LT in 2009-2016 (n = 1,067) were identified using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes through Medicare claims. Index procedure length of stay, need for intensive care unit (ICU) level care, readmission rates, and AE rates at 30 and 90 days were compared using chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests. Examined AEs included hemorrhage, abscess formation, biliary injury, pneumonia, sepsis, liver disease-related AEs, liver failure, and anesthesia-related AEs, identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/10th Revision, codes. RESULTS: The median length of stay for initial treatment was 1 day, 6 days, and 7 days for AB, SR, and LT, respectively (P < .001). During initial hospital stay, 5.0%, 40.8%, and 63.4% of AB, SR, and LT cohorts, respectively, received ICU-level care (P < .001). By 30 and 90 days, there were significant differences among the AB, SR, and LT cohorts in the rate of postprocedural hemorrhage, abscess formation, biliary injury, pneumonia, sepsis, liver disease-related AEs, and anesthesia-related AEs (P < .05). By 90 days, the readmission rates after AB, SR, and LT were 18.6%, 28.2%, and 40.6% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AB results in significantly less healthcare utilization during the initial 90 days after procedure compared with that after SR and LT due to shorter length of stay, lower intensity care, fewer readmissions, and fewer AEs.

Comparing Hospital Length of Stay Risk-Adjustment Models in US Value-Based Physician Payments.

BACKGROUNG AND OBJECTIVES: Under the Affordable Care Act, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created the Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program and its successor, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, to tie physician payments to quality and cost. The addition of hospital length of stay (LOS) to these value-based physician payment models reflects its increasing importance as a metric of health care cost and efficiency and its association with adverse health outcomes. This study compared the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-endorsed LOS risk-adjustment methodology with a novel methodology that accounts for pre-hospitalization clinical, socioeconomic status (SES), and admission-related factors as influential factors of hospital LOS. METHODS: Using the 2014 New York, Florida, and New Jersey State Inpatient Database, we compared the observed-to-expected LOS of 2373102 adult admissions for 742 medical and surgical diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) by 3 models: ( a ) current risk-adjustment model (CRM), which adjusted for age, sex, number of chronic conditions, Elixhauser comorbidity score, and DRG severity weight, ( b ) CRM but modeling LOS using a generalized linear model (C-GLM), and (c) novel risk-adjustment model (NRM), which added to the C-GLM covariates for race/ethnicity, SES, discharge destination, weekend admission, and individual intercepts for DRGs instead of severity weights. RESULTS: The NRM disadvantaged physicians for fewer medical and surgical DRGs, compared with both the C-GLM and CRM models (medical DRGs: 0.49% vs 13.17% and 10.89%, respectively; surgical DRGs: 0.30% vs 13.17% and 10.98%, respectively). In subgroup analysis, the NRM reduced the proportion of physician-penalizing DRGs across all racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, with the highest reduction among Whites, followed by low SES patients, and the lowest reduction among Hispanic patients. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for pre-hospitalization socioeconomic and clinical factors, the adjusted LOS using the NRM was lower than estimates from the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-endorsed model. The current model may disadvantage physicians serving communities with higher socioeconomic risks.

Long-Term Survival After Surgery Versus Ablation for Early Liver Cancer in a Large, Nationally Representative Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival outcomes (all-cause, cancer-specific, and disease-free) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), less than or equal to 5 cm, after ablation (AB) and surgical resection (SR) after adjusting for key confounders. Secondarily, to understand differential survival outcomes of liver transplant (TR) compared with SR and AB. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare, HCCs less than 5 cm that were treated with AB, SR, or TR in 2009 to 2016 (n = 1,215) were identified using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes through Medicare claims. The TR group was subdivided into two groups: TR with prior treatment and TR without prior treatment. All-cause survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between groups using log-rank tests and Cox regression analyses. Propensity score-matched comparison of AB and SR groups was performed, with groups matched on demographics, social determinants of health, medical comorbidities, and liver disease severity prognostic indicators. RESULTS: Median study follow-up time was 2.71 years (interquartile range 1.25-3.83). Unadjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year cancer-specific survivals were 85.9%, 67.6%, and 56.3% for the AB group; 91.7%, 82.6%, and 81.7% for the SR group; 93.5%, 88.7%, and 79.4% for TR without prior treatment group; and 96.4%, 93.2%, and 93.2% for TR with prior treatment group (P < .0001). With SR as the reference group, the propensity-matched hazard ratios for AB were 2.04 (95% confidence interval: 1.51-2.77) for all-cause mortality, 2.44 (95% confidence interval: 1.56-3.80) for cancer-specific mortality, and 2.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.61-2.78) for disease recurrence. DISCUSSION: SR is superior to AB for small HCCs in a large, nationally representative, modern cohort, and in secondary analysis TR was superior to both.

Does Value-Based Care Threaten Joint Arthroplasty Access for Vulnerable Patient Populations?: AOA Critical Issues.

ABSTRACT: Health-care expenses have been projected to increase from 17.7% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 to 19.6% in 2024. The unsustainable increase in health-care costs has contributed toward support for value-based health care (VBHC) reform. Contemporary VBHC reform programs relevant to orthopaedic surgery include the voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced) and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory bundled payment program.The purported benefits of transitioning from volume-based reimbursement to value-based reimbursement include moving from a fragmented provider-centered care model to a patient-centered model, with greater care coordination and alignment among providers focused on improving value. VBHC models allow innovative strategies to proactively invest resources to promote value (e.g., the use of nurse navigators) while eliminating unnecessary resources that do not promote value. However, major concerns regarding VBHC include the absence of medical and socioeconomic risk stratification as well as decreased access for higher-risk patients.This article identifies the benefits and potential unintended consequences of VBHC reform, with a focus on joint arthroplasty. We also discuss some potential strategies to promote innovation and improve value without compromising access for vulnerable patients.

The Proportion of Marginalized Individuals in US Communities and Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments.

Hospitals have demonstrated the benefits of both voluntary and mandatory bundled payments for joint replacement surgery. However, given generalizability and disparities concerns, it is critical to understand the availability of care through bundled payments to historically marginalized groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities and individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES). This cross-sectional analysis of 3880 US communities evaluated the relationship between the proportion of Black and Hispanic individuals (minority share) or Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible individuals (low SES share) and community-level participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BPCI) (being a BPCI community) and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model (being a CJR community). An increase from the lowest to highest quartile of minority share was not associated with differences in the probability of being a BPCI community (3.5 percentage point [pp] difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2% to 8.3%, P = 0.15), but was associated with a 16.1 pp higher probability of being a CJR community (95% CI 10.3% to 22.0%, P < 0.0001). An increase from the lowest to highest quartile of low SES share was associated with a 6.0 pp lower probability of being a BPCI community (95% CI -10.9% to -1.2%, P = 0.02) and 19.0 pp lower probability of being a CJR community (95% CI -24.9% to -13.0%, P < 0.0001). These findings highlight that the greater the proportion of lower SES individuals in a community, the lower the likelihood that its hospitals participated in either voluntary or mandatory bundled payments. Policymakers should consider community socioeconomic characteristics when designing participation mechanisms for future bundled payment programs.

Are Income-based Differences in TKA Use and Outcomes Reduced in a Single-payer System? A Large-database Comparison of the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Income-based differences in the use of and outcomes in TKA have been studied; however, it is not known if different healthcare systems affect this relationship. Although Canada's single-payer healthcare system is assumed to attenuate the wealth-based differences in TKA use observed in the United States, empirical cross-border comparisons are lacking. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does TKA use differ between Pennsylvania, USA, and Ontario, Canada? (2) Are income-based disparities in TKA use larger in Pennsylvania or Ontario? (3) Are TKA outcomes (90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, and 1-year revision rates) different between Pennsylvania and Ontario? (4) Are income-based disparities in TKA outcomes larger in Pennsylvania or Ontario? METHODS: We identified all patients hospitalized for primary TKA in this cross-border retrospective analysis, using administrative data for 2012 to 2018, and we found a total of 161,244 primary TKAs in Ontario and 208,016 TKAs in Pennsylvania. We used data from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, Harrisburg, PA, USA, and the ICES (formally the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We linked patient-level data to the respective census data to determine community-level income using ZIP Code or postal code of residence and stratified patients into neighborhood income quintiles. We compared TKA use (age and gender, standardized per 10,000 population per year) for patients residing in the highest-income versus the lowest-income quintile neighborhoods. Similarly secondary outcomes 90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, and 1-year revision rates were compared between the two regions and analyzed by income groups. RESULTS: TKA use was higher in Pennsylvania than in Ontario overall and for all income quintiles (lowest income quartile: 31 versus 18 procedures per 10,000 population per year; p < 0.001; highest income quartile: 38 versus 23 procedures per 10,000 population per year; p < 0.001). The relative difference in use between the highest-income and lowest-income quintile was larger in Ontario (28% higher) than in Pennsylvania (23% higher); p < 0.001. Patients receiving TKA in Pennsylvania were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days and were more likely to undergo revision within the first year than patients in Ontario, but there was no difference in mortality at 1 year. When comparing income groups, there were no differences between the countries in 90-day mortality, readmission, or 1-year revision rates (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that universal health insurance through a single-payer may not reduce the income-based differences in TKA access that are known to exist in the United States. Future studies are needed determine if our results are consistent across other geographic regions and other surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Medicare/Medicaid Insurance Status Is Associated With Reduced Lower Bilateral Knee Arthroplasty Utilization and Higher Complication Rates.

Whether to undergo bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) depends on patient and surgeon preferences. We used the National Inpatient Sample to compare temporal trends in BTKA utilization and in-hospital complication rates among TKA patients ≥50 with Medicare/Medicaid versus private insurance from 2007 to 2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between insurance type and trends in utilization and complication rates adjusting for individual-, hospital-, and community-level covariates, using unilateral TKA (UTKA) for reference. Discharge weights were used for nationwide estimates. About 132,400 (49.5%) Medicare/Medicaid patients and 135,046 (50.5%) privately insured patients underwent BTKA. Among UTKA patients, 62.7% had Medicare/Medicaid, and 37.3% had private insurance. Over the study period, BTKA utilization rate decreased from 7.18% to 5.63% among privately insured patients and from 4.59% to 3.13% among Medicaid/Medicare patients (P trend difference <0.0001). In multivariable analysis, Medicare/Medicaid patients were less likely to receive BTKA than privately insured patients. Although Medicare/Medicaid patients were more likely to develop in-hospital complications after UTKA (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.002 to 1.12; P = 0.04), this relationship was not statistically significant for BTKAs. In this nationwide sample of TKA patients, BTKA utilization rate was higher in privately insured patients compared with Medicare/Medicaid patients. Furthermore, privately insured patients had lower in-hospital complication rates than Medicare/Medicaid patients.

Capitated versus fee-for-service reimbursement and quality of care for chronic disease: a US cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upcoming alternative payment models Primary Care First (PCF) and Kidney Care Choices (KCC) incorporate capitated payments for chronic disease management. Prior research on the effect of capitated payments on chronic disease management has shown mixed results. We assessed the patient, physician, and practice characteristics of practices with capitation as the majority of revenue, and evaluated the association of capitated reimbursement with quality of chronic disease care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of visits in the United States' National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for patients with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our predictor was practice reimbursement type, classified as 1) majority capitation, 2) majority FFS, or 3) other reimbursement mix. Outcomes were quality indicators of hypertension control, diabetes control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) use, and statin use. RESULTS: About 9% of visits were to practices with majority capitation revenue. Capitated practices, compared with FFS and other practices, had lower visit frequency (3.7 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.2, p = 0.006), were more likely to be located in the West Census Region (55% vs. 18% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), less likely to be solo practice (21% vs. 37% vs. 35%, p = 0.005), more likely to be owned by an insurance company, health plan or HMO (24% vs. 13% vs. 13%, p = 0.033), and more likely to have private insurance (43% vs. 25% vs. 19%, p = 0.004) and managed care payments (69% vs. 23% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) as the majority of revenue. The prevalence of controlled hypertension, controlled diabetes, ACEi/ARB use, and statin use was suboptimal across practice reimbursement types. Capitated reimbursement was not associated with differences in hypertension, diabetes, or CKD quality indicators, in multivariable models adjusting for patient, physician, and practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Practices with majority capitation revenue differed substantially from FFS and other practices in patient, physician, and practice characteristics, but were not associated with consistent quality differences. Our findings establish baseline estimates of chronic disease quality of care performance by practice reimbursement composition, informing chronic disease care delivery within upcoming payment models.

Association Between Patient Diversity in Hospitals and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Patient Length of Stay.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals serving a disproportionate share of racial/ethnic minorities have been shown to have poorer quality outcomes. It is unknown whether efficiencies in inpatient care, measured by length of stay (LOS), differ based on the proportion patients served by a hospital who are minorities. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the racial/ethnic diversity of a hospital's patients and disparities in LOS. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: One million five hundred forty-six thousand nine hundred fifty-five admissions using the 2017 New York State Inpatient Database from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. MAIN MEASURE: Differences in mean adjusted LOS (ALOS) between White and Black, Hispanic, and Other (Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and Other) admissions by Racial/Ethnic Diversity Index (proportion of non-White patients admitted to total patients admitted to that same hospital) in quintiles (Q1 to Q5), stratified by discharge destination. Mean LOS was adjusted for patient demographic, clinical, and admission characteristics and for individual intercepts for each hospital. KEY RESULTS: In both unadjusted and adjusted analysis, Black-White and Other-White mean LOS differences were smallest in the most diverse hospitals (Black-White: unadjusted, -0.07 days [-0.1 to -0.04], and adjusted, 0.16 days [95% CI: 0.16 to 0.16]; Other-White: unadjusted, -0.74 days [95% CI: -0.77 to -0.71], and adjusted, 0.01 days [95% CI: 0.01 to 0.02]). For Hispanic patients, in unadjusted analysis, the mean LOS difference was greatest in the most diverse hospitals (-0.92 days, 95% CI: -0.95 to -0.89) but after adjustment, this was no longer the case. Similar patterns across all racial/ethnic groups were observed after analyses were stratified by discharge destination. CONCLUSION: Mean adjusted LOS differences between White and Black patients, and White and patients of Other race was smallest in most diverse hospitals, but not differences between Hispanic and White patients. These findings may reflect specific structural factors which affect racial/ethnic differences in patient LOS.

What Factors Lead to Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most commonly performed, major elective surgeries in the USA. African American TKA patients on average experience worse clinical outcomes than whites, including lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes and higher rates of complications, hospital readmissions, and reoperations. The mechanisms leading to these racial health disparities are unclear, but likely involve patient, provider, healthcare system, and societal factors. Lower physical and mental health at baseline, lower social support, provider bias, lower rates of health insurance coverage, higher utilization of lower quality hospitals, and systemic racism may contribute to the inferior outcomes that African Americans experience. Limited evidence suggests that improving the quality of surgical care can offset these factors and lead to a reduction in outcome disparities.

Impact of Race and Insurance Status on Primary Treatment for HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of sociodemographic factors on primary treatment choice (surgery vs radiotherapy) in patients with human papillomavirus-associated (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database. SETTING: Data from >1500 Commission on Cancer institutions (academic and community) via the National Cancer Database. METHODS: Our sample consists of patients diagnosed with HPV+ OPSCC from 2010 to 2015. The primary outcome of interest was initial treatment modality: surgery vs radiation. We performed multivariable logistic models to assess the relationship between treatment choice and sociodemographic factors, including sex, race, treatment facility, and insurance status. RESULTS: Of the 16,043 patients identified, 5894 (36.7%) underwent primary surgery while 10,149 (63.3%) received primary radiotherapy. Black patients were less likely than White patients to receive primary surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96). When compared with privately insured patients, those who were uninsured or on Medicaid or Medicare were also less likely to receive primary surgery (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.56-0.86]; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.91]; OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96], respectively). Patients receiving treatment at an academic/research cancer program were more likely to undergo primary surgery than those treated at comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14-1.56). CONCLUSION: In this large sample of patients with HPV+ OPSCC, race and insurance status affect primary treatment choice. Specifically, Black and nonprivately insured patients are less likely to receive primary surgery as compared with White or privately insured patients. Our findings illuminate potential disparities in HPV+ OPSCC treatment.

Racial and Neighborhood-Level Disparities in COVID-19 Incidence among Patients on Hemodialysis in New York City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected socially disadvantaged populations. Whether disparities in COVID-19 incidence related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors exist in the hemodialysis population is unknown. METHODS: Our study involved patients receiving in-center hemodialysis in New York City. We used a validated index of neighborhood social vulnerability, the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which comprises 15 census tract-level indicators organized into four themes: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation. We examined the association of race/ethnicity and the SVI with symptomatic COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and August 3, 2020. COVID-19 cases were ascertained using PCR testing. We performed multivariable logistic regression to adjust for demographics, individual-level social factors, dialysis-related medical history, and dialysis facility factors. RESULTS: Of the 1378 patients on hemodialysis in the study, 247 (17.9%) developed symptomatic COVID-19. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had significantly increased odds of COVID-19 compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Census tract-level overall SVI, modeled continuously or in quintiles, was not associated with COVID-19 in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Among non-Hispanic White patients, the socioeconomic status SVI theme, the minority status and language SVI theme, and housing crowding were significantly associated with COVID-19 in unadjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients on hemodialysis in New York City, there were substantial racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 incidence not explained by neighborhood-level social vulnerability. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic status, minority status and language, and housing crowding were positively associated with acquiring COVID-19 among non-Hispanic Whites. Our findings suggest that socially vulnerable patients on dialysis face disparate COVID-19-related exposures, requiring targeted risk-mitigation strategies.

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic variations in hospital length of stay: A state-based analysis.

ABSTRACT: Disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) exist in rehospitalization rates and inpatient mortality rates. Few studies have examined how length of stay (LOS, a measure of hospital efficiency/quality) differs by race/ethnicity and SES.This study's objective was to determine whether differences in risk-adjusted LOS exist by race/ethnicity and SESUsing a retrospective cohort of 1,432,683 medical and surgical discharges, we compared risk-adjusted LOS, in days, by race/ ethnicity and SES (median household income by patient ZIP code in quartiles), using generalized linear models controlling for demographic and clinical factors, and differences between hospitals and between diagnoses.White patients were on average older than both Black and Hispanic patients, had more chronic conditions, and had a higher inpatient mortality risk. In adjusted analyses, Black patients had a significantly longer LOS than White patients (0.25-day difference when discharged to home and 0.23-day difference when discharged to non-home destinations, both P<.001); there was no difference between Hispanic and White patients. Wealthier patients had a shorter LOS than poorer patients (0.16-day difference when discharged to home and 0.06-day difference when discharged to nonhome destinations, both P<.001). These differences by race/ethnicity reversed for Medicaid patients.Disparities in LOS exist based on a patient's race/ethnicity and SES. Black and poorer patients, but not Hispanic patients, have longer LOS compared to White and wealthier patients. In aggregate, these differences may be related to trust and implicit bias and have implications for use of LOS as a quality metric. Future research should examine the drivers of these disparities.

Social and Clinical Determinants of COVID-19 Outcomes: Modeling Real-World Data from a Pandemic Epicenter.

IMPORTANCE: As the United States continues to accumulate COVID-19 cases and deaths, and disparities persist, defining the impact of risk factors for poor outcomes across patient groups is imperative. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to use real-world healthcare data to quantify the impact of demographic, clinical, and social determinants associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes, to identify high-risk scenarios and dynamics of risk among racial and ethnic groups. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort of COVID-19 patients diagnosed between March 1 and August 20, 2020. Fully adjusted logistical regression models for hospitalization, severe disease and mortality outcomes across 1-the entire cohort and 2- within self-reported race/ethnicity groups. SETTING: Three sites of the NewYork-Presbyterian health care system serving all boroughs of New York City. Data was obtained through automated data abstraction from electronic medical records. PARTICIPANTS: During the study timeframe, 110,498 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in the NewYork-Presbyterian health care system; 11,930 patients were confirmed for COVID-19 by RT-PCR or covid-19 clinical diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The predictors of interest were patient race/ethnicity, and covariates included demographics, comorbidities, and census tract neighborhood socio-economic status. The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 hospitalization, severe disease, and death. RESULTS: Of confirmed COVID-19 patients, 4,895 were hospitalized, 1,070 developed severe disease and 1,654 suffered COVID-19 related death. Clinical factors had stronger impacts than social determinants and several showed race-group specificities, which varied among outcomes. The most significant factors in our all-patients models included: age over 80 (OR=5.78, p= 2.29x10-24) and hypertension (OR=1.89, p=1.26x10-10) having the highest impact on hospitalization, while Type 2 Diabetes was associated with all three outcomes (hospitalization: OR=1.48, p=1.39x10-04; severe disease: OR=1.46, p=4.47x10-09; mortality: OR=1.27, p=0.001). In race-specific models, COPD increased risk of hospitalization only in Non-Hispanics (NH)-Whites (OR=2.70, p=0.009). Obesity (BMI 30+) showed race-specific risk with severe disease NH-Whites (OR=1.48, p=0.038) and NH-Blacks (OR=1.77, p=0.025). For mortality, Cancer was the only risk factor in Hispanics (OR=1.97, p=0.043), and heart failure was only a risk in NH-Asians (OR=2.62, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Comorbidities were more influential on COVID-19 outcomes than social determinants, suggesting clinical factors are more predictive of adverse trajectory than social factors.

Health Care Needs in the Aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico: A Perspective from Federal Medical Shelter Manatí.

INTRODUCTION: On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 hurricane, swept across Puerto Rico (PR), wreaking devastation to PR's power, water, and health care infrastructure. To address the imminent humanitarian crisis, the US government mobilized Federal Medical Shelters (FMS) to serve the needs of hurricane victims. This study's objective was to provide a description of the patients seeking emergency care at FMS and the changes in their needs over time. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included all patients presenting to the FMS Manatí from October 6, two weeks after Hurricane Maria's landfall, to November 2, 2017. Categories were created to catalogue the nature of new acute medical issues by patients presenting to the Shelter. Descriptive, graphical analyses were performed to assess changes to presenting complaints over time, and by age groups defined as infant (age ≤1 years), child (1 year < age ≤10 years), adolescent (10 years < age ≤ 25 years), and adult (age > 25 years). RESULTS: Over the 30-day period, 5,268 patients were seen in the FMS seeking medical care (average 188.1 patients per day), spending less than five hours in the facility. The distribution of patients' age was bimodal: the first peak at one year and the second at age 50. The most common patient complaint was infection (38.8%), then musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints (11.8%) and management of chronic medical conditions (11.8%). The proportion of patients presenting with chronic disease complaints declined over the course of the period of observation (21.4% on Day 4 to 8.0% on Day 30) while the proportion of patients presenting with infection increased (31.0% on Day 4 to 48.6% on Day 30). Infection complaints were highest in all age groups, but most in infxants (80.2%), while MSK and chronic disease complaints were highest in adults (14.9% and 14.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Infection treatment and chronic disease management were important medical needs facing patients seeking care at FMS Manatí after Hurricane Maria. These findings suggest that basic needs related to sanitation and shelter remained important weeks after the hurricane, and a focus on access to medications, infection control, and injury prevention/management after a disaster needs to be prioritized during disaster response.