Disparities in Care for Low-Income Patients with Cirrhosis: Implementing an Innovative Outpatient Clinic for Refractory Ascites in a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in life-saving interventions for low-income patients with cirrhosis necessitate innovative models of care. AIM: To implement a novel generalist-led FLuid ASPiration (FLASP) clinic to reduce emergency department (ED) care for refractory ascites. SETTING: A large safety net hospital in Los Angeles. PARTICIPANTS: MediCal patients with paracentesis in the ED from 6/1/2020 to 1/31/2021 or in FLASP clinic or the ED from 3/1/2021 to 4/30/2022. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: According to RE-AIM, adoption obtained administrative endorsement and oriented ED staff. Reach engaged ED staff and eligible patients with timely access to FLASP. Implementation trained FLASP clinicians in safer, guideline-based paracentesis, facilitated timely access, and offered patient education and support. PROGRAM EVALUATION: After FLASP clinic opened, significantly fewer ED visits were made by patients discharged after paracentesis [rate ratio (RR) of 0.33 (95% CI 0.28, 0.40, p < 0.0001)] but not if subsequently hospitalized (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.70, 1.11). Among 2685 paracenteses in 225 FLASP patients, complications were infrequent: 39 (1.5%) spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, 265 (9.9%) acute kidney injury, and 2 (< 0.001%) hypotension. FLASP patients rated satisfaction highly on a Likert-type question. DISCUSSION: Patients with refractory ascites in large safety net hospitals may benefit from an outpatient procedure clinic instead of ED care.

Hospital Finances During the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Washington State Hospitals.

The COVID-19 pandemic created a broad array of challenges for hospitals. These challenges included restrictions on admissions and procedures, patient surges, rising costs of labor and supplies, and a disparate impact on already disadvantaged populations. Many of these intersecting challenges put pressure on hospitals' finances. There was concern that financial pressure would be particularly acute for hospitals serving vulnerable populations, including safety-net (SN) hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs). Using data from hospitals in Washington State, we examined changes in operating margins for SN hospitals, CAHs, and other acute care hospitals in 2020 and 2021. We found that the operating margins for all three categories of hospitals fell from 2019 to 2020, with SNs and CAHs sustaining the largest declines. During 2021, operating margins improved for all three hospital categories but SN operating margins still remained negative. Both changes in revenue and changes in expenses contributed to observed changes in operating margins. Our study is one of the first to describe how the financial effects of COVID-19 differed for SNs, CAHs, and other acute care hospitals over the first two years of the pandemic. Our results highlight the continuing financial vulnerability of SNs and demonstrate how the factors that contribute to profitability can shift over time.

Clinical and financial outcomes of pulmonary resection for lung cancer in safety-net hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) have previously been associated with inferior outcomes and greater resource use. However, this relationship has not been explored in the contemporary setting of pulmonary lobectomy. In the present national study we characterized the association between SNHs and mortality, complications, and resource use. METHODS: All adults (18 years of age or older) who underwent elective lobectomy for lung cancer were identified within the 2010 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Hospitals in the highest quartile of safety-net burden were categorized as SNHs, and others non-SNHs. Multivariable regressions were developed to assess the independent association between safety-net status and outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of an estimated 282,011 patients who met inclusion criteria, 41,015 (14.5%) were treated at SNHs. Patients at SNHs were younger but as commonly female, compared with non-SNHs. After multivariable adjustment, there was no association between SNHs and mortality. However, treatment at SNHs was linked to higher odds of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.21) and prolonged ventilation (AOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.66), as well as infectious (AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.43), intraoperative (AOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39), and overall complications (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14). Patients at SNHs also showed a greater need for a blood transfusion (AOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23-1.53). In addition, SNHs were associated with increased length of stay (+0.33 days; 95% CI, 0.17-0.48) and greater costs (+$4130; 95% CI, 3.34-4.92), relative to non-SNHs. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital safety-net status was associated with greater odds of perioperative complications and greater health care expenditure. Further investigation is necessary uncover the mechanisms contributing to these complications and eradicate persistent disparities in lobectomy.

Emergency departments in the United States treating high proportions of patients with ambulatory care sensitive conditions: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: One in nine emergency department (ED) visits by Medicare beneficiaries are for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). This study aimed to examine the association between ACSC ED visits to hospitals with the highest proportion of ACSC visits ("high ACSC hospitals) and safety-net status. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of ED visits by Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ≥ 65 years using 2013-14 claims data, Area Health Resources File data, and County Health Rankings. Logistic regression estimated the association between an ACSC ED visit to high ACSC hospitals, accounting for individual, hospital, and community factors, including whether the visit was to a safety-net hospital. Safety net status was measured by Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) index patient percentage; public hospital status; and proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries. Hospital-level correlation was calculated between ACSC visits, DSH index, and dual-eligible patients. We stratified by type of ACSC visit: acute or chronic. RESULTS: Among 5,192,729 ACSC ED visits, the odds of visiting a high ACSC hospital were higher for patients who were Black (1.37), dual-eligible (1.18), and with the highest comorbidity burden (1.26, p < 0.001 for all). ACSC visits had increased odds of being to high ACSC hospitals if the hospitals were high DSH (1.43), served the highest proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries (2.23), and were for-profit (relative to non-profit) (1.38), and lower odds were associated with public hospitals (0.64) (p < 0.001 for all). This relationship was similar for visits to high chronic ACSC hospitals (high DSH: 1.59, high dual-eligibility: 2.60, for-profit: 1.41, public: 0.63, all p < 0.001) and to a lesser extent, high acute ACSC hospitals (high DSH: 1.02; high dual-eligibility: 1.48, for-profit: 1.17, public: 0.94, p < 0.001). The proportion of ACSC visits at all hospitals was weakly correlated with DSH proportion (0.2) and the proportion of dual-eligible patients (0.29), and this relationship was also seen for both chronic and acute ACSC visits, though stronger for the chronic ACSC visits. CONCLUSION: Visits to hospitals with a high proportion of acute ACSC ED visits may be less likely to be to hospitals classified as safety net hospitals than those with a high proportion of chronic ACSC visits.

The American Cancer Society and patient navigation: Past and future perspectives.

Over the past 30 years, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has played a key role in shaping the field of patient navigation as a means to address cancer disparities. Through collaborations with organizations like the National Navigation Roundtable and the ACS Cancer Action Network, the ACS is uniquely positioned to help develop sustainable navigation models that directly address disparities in access to quality cancer care. As health systems continue to adapt and change in response to various factors, including an aging population and rapid advances in screening and treatment, it is important to evaluate existing navigation-delivery models and promote those that are sustainable while maximizing reach and impact and providing the greatest return on investment (ROI). In this report, the term ROI is used to describe the potential financial gain resulting from the navigation service (ROI = net gains/total program cost). Calculating net gains requires assigning a monetary value to key outcomes and subtracting this amount from the total program cost. ROI is a measure often used by health care executives to show the savings or financial benefit from a program or service. Other measures of financial impact exist that may be of greater or lesser value to program leadership, including cost effectiveness (if financial information for outcomes is not available) and cost-benefit analysis. Here, the current and future commitment of the ACS to advancing the field of patient navigation is outlined as an organizational priority and a key building block in their health equity strategy. By working with partners like the National Navigation Roundtable, the ACS can help guide efforts to evaluate these approaches, with the goal of identifying the most effective and potentially sustainable models of delivery while also increasing equitable access to care.

Did the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Reduce Readmissions without Hurting Patient Outcomes at High Dual-Proportion Hospitals Prior to Stratification?

Since the implementation of Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), safety-net hospitals have received a disproportionate share of financial penalties for excess readmissions, raising concerns about the fairness of the policy. In response, the HRRP now stratifies hospitals into five quintiles by low-income Medicare (dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible) stay proportion and compares readmission rates within quintiles. To better understand the potential effects of the revised policy, we used difference-in-differences models to compare changes in 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90th-day community-dwelling rates after discharge of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia during 2007-2014, for hospitals in the highest (N = 677) and lowest (N = 678) dual-proportion quintiles before and after the original HRRP implementation in fiscal year 2013. We find that high dual-proportion hospitals lowered readmissions for all three conditions, while their patients' health outcomes remained largely stable. We also find that for heart failure, high dual-proportion hospitals reduced readmissions more than low dual-proportion hospitals, albeit with a relative increase in mortality. Contrary to concerns about fairness, our findings imply that, under the original HRRP, high dual-proportion hospitals improved readmissions performance generally without adverse effects on patients' health. Whether these gains could be retained under the new policy should be closely monitored.

Readmissions performance and penalty experience of safety-net hospitals under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in March 2010, introduced payment-reduction penalties on acute care hospitals with higher-than-expected readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia. There is concern that hospitals serving large numbers of low-income and uninsured patients (safety-net hospitals) are at greater risk of higher readmissions and penalties, often due to factors that are likely outside the hospital's control. Using publicly reported data, we compared the readmissions performance and penalty experience among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. METHODS: We used nationwide hospital level data for 2009-2016 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare program, CMS Final Impact Rule, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We identified as safety-net hospitals the top quartile of hospitals in terms of the proportion of patients receiving income-based public benefits. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach based on the comparison of pre- vs. post-HRRP changes in (risk-adjusted) 30-day readmission rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals, we estimated the change in readmissions rate associated with HRRP. We also compared the penalty frequency among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. RESULTS: Our study cohort included 1915 hospitals, of which 479 were safety-net hospitals. At baseline (2009), safety-net hospitals had a slightly higher readmission rate compared to non-safety net hospitals for all three conditions: AMI, 20.3% vs. 19.8% (p value< 0.001); heart failure, 25.2% vs. 24.2% (p-value< 0.001); pneumonia, 18.7% vs. 18.1% (p-value< 0.001). Beginning in 2012, readmission rates declined similarly in both hospital groups for all three cohorts. Based on difference-in-differences analysis, HRRP was associated with similar change in the readmissions rate in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals for AMI and heart failure. For the pneumonia cohort, we found a larger reduction (0.23%; p < 0.001) in safety-net hospitals. The frequency of readmissions penalty was higher among safety-net hospitals. The proportion of hospitals penalized during all four post-HRRP years was 72% among safety-net and 59% among non-safety-net hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results lend support to the concerns of disproportionately higher risk of performance-based penalty on safety-net hospitals.

System-Level Factors Associated With Telephone and Video Visit Use: Survey of Safety-Net Clinicians During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted safety-net health care systems to rapidly implement telemedicine services with little prior experience, causing disparities in access to virtual visits. While much attention has been given to patient barriers, less is known regarding system-level factors influencing telephone versus video-visit adoption. As telemedicine remains a preferred service for patients and providers, and reimbursement parity will not continue for audio visits, health systems must evaluate how to support higher-quality video visit access. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess health system-level factors and their impact on telephone and video visit adoption to inform sustainability of telemedicine for ambulatory safety-net sites. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among ambulatory care clinicians at a hospital-linked ambulatory clinic network serving a diverse, publicly insured patient population between May 28 and July 14, 2020. We conducted bivariate analyses assessing health care system-level factors associated with (1) high telephone adoption (4 or more visits on average per session); and (2) video visit adoption (at least 1 video visit on average per session). RESULTS: We collected 311 responses from 643 eligible clinicians, yielding a response rate of 48.4%. Clinician respondents (N=311) included 34.7% (n=108) primary or urgent care, 35.1% (n=109) medical, and 7.4% (n=23) surgical specialties. Our sample included 178 (57.2%) high telephone adopters and 81 (26.05%) video adopters. Among high telephone adopters, 72.2% utilized personal devices for telemedicine (vs 59.0% of low telephone adopters, P=.04). Video nonadopters requested more training in technical aspects than adopters (49.6% vs 27.2%, P<.001). Primary or urgent care had the highest proportion of high telephone adoption (84.3%, compared to 50.4% of medical and 37.5% of surgical specialties, P<.001). Medical specialties had the highest proportion of video adoption (39.1%, compared to 14.8% of primary care and 12.5% of surgical specialties, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Personal device access and department specialty were major factors associated with high telephone and video visit adoption among safety-net clinicians. Desire for training was associated with lower video visit use. Secure device access, clinician technical trainings, and department-wide assessments are priorities for safety-net systems implementing telemedicine.

Clinical and Financial Outcomes of Necrotizing Soft-Tissue Infections in Safety-Net Hospitals.

Background Prior work has demonstrated inferior outcomes for a multitude of medical and surgical conditions at hospitals with high burdens of underinsured patients (safety-net). The present study aimed to evaluate trends in incidence, clinical outcomes and resource utilization in the surgical management of necrotizing soft-tissue infections (NSTI) at safety-net hospitals. Materials and methods Adults requiring surgical debridement/amputation following NSTI-related hospitalizations were identified in the 2005-2018 National Inpatient Sample. Safety-net status (SNH) was assigned to institutions in the top tertile for annual proportion of underinsured patients. Logistic multivariable regression was utilized to evaluate the association of SNH with mortality, hospitalization duration (LOS), costs and discharge disposition. Results Of an estimated 212,692 patients, 76,719 (36.1%) were managed at SNH. The annual incidence of NSTI admissions increased overall while associated mortality declined. After adjustment, SNH status was associated with greater odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratios: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.03-1.26), LOS (ß: +1.8 d, 95% CI: 1.3-2.2) and costs (ß: +$4,400, 95% CI: 2,900-5,800). SNH patients had similar rates of amputation but lower likelihood of care facility or home health discharge. Conclusion With a rising incidence and overall reduction in mortality, safety-net hospitals persistently exhibit greater mortality and resource use for surgical NSTI admissions. Variation in access, disease presentation and timeliness of operative intervention may explain the observed findings.

Outcomes and Resource Use Associated With Acute Respiratory Failure in Safety Net Hospitals Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency and cost of hospitalizations for acute respiratory failure (ARF), the literature regarding the impact of hospital safety net burden on outcomes of these hospitalizations is sparse. RESEARCH QUESTION: How does safety net burden impact outcomes of ARF hospitalizations such as mortality, tracheostomy, and resource use? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample 2007-2017. All patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of ARF were tabulated using the International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision codes, and safety net burden was calculated using previously published methodology. High- and low-burden hospitals were generated from proportions of Medicaid and uninsured patients. Trends were analyzed using a nonparametric rank-based test, whereas multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to establish associations of safety net burden with key clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of an estimated 8,941,334 hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ARF, 33.9% were categorized as occurring at low-burden hospitals (LBHs) and 31.6% were categorized as occurring at high-burden hospitals (HBHs). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased at HBHs (22.8%-12.6%; nonparametric trend [nptrend] < .001) and LBHs (22.0%-10.9%; nptrend < .001) over the study period, as did tracheostomy placement (HBH, 5.6%-1.3%; LBH, 3.5%-0.8%; all nptrend <.001). After adjustment for patient and hospital factors, an HBH was associated with increased odds of mortality (adjusted OR [AOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.12) and tracheostomy use (AOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.29-1.37), as well as greater hospitalization costs (ß coefficient, +$1,083; 95% CI, $882-$1,294) and longer lengths of stay (ß coefficient, +3.3 days; 95% CI, 3.2-3.3 days). INTERPRETATION: After accounting for differences between patient cohorts, high safety net burden was associated independently with inferior clinical outcomes and increased costs after ARF hospitalizations. These findings emphasize the need for health care reform to ameliorate disparities within these safety net centers, which treat our most vulnerable populations.

Clinician experience with telemedicine at a safety-net hospital network during COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted unprecedented expansion of telemedicine services. We sought to describe clinician experiences providing telemedicine to publicly-insured, low-income patients during COVID-19. Methods: Online survey of ambulatory clinicians in an urban safety-net hospital system, conducted May 28 2020-July 14 2020. Results: Among 311 participants (response rate 48.3%), 34.7% (N=108/311) practiced in primary/urgent care, 37.0% (N=115/311) medical specialty and 7.7% (N=24/311) surgical clinics. 87.8% (273/311) had conducted telephone visits, 26% (81/311) video. Participants reported observing both technical and non-technical patient barriers. Clinicians reported concerns about the diagnostic safety of telephone (58.9%, 129/219) vs video (35.3%, 24/68). However, clinician comfort with telemedicine was high (89.3% (216/242) for telephone, 91.0% (61/67) for video), with many clinicians (220/239 or 92.1% telephone, 60/66 or 90.9% video) planning to continue telemedicine after COVID-19. Conclusions: Clinicians in a safety-net healthcare system report high comfort with and intention to continue telemedicine after the pandemic, despite patient challenges and safety concerns.

Are Improvements Still Needed to the Modified Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: a Health and Retirement Study (2000-2014)?

BACKGROUND: To address concerns that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) unfairly penalized safety net hospitals treating patients with high social and functional risks, Medicare recently modified HRRP to compare hospitals with similar proportions of high-risk, dual-eligible patients ("peer group hospitals"). Whether the change fully accounts for patients' social and functional risks is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) and hospital penalties after adding patient-level social and functional and community-level risk factors. DESIGN: Using 2000-2014 Medicare hospital discharge, Health and Retirement Study, and community-level data, latent factors for patient social and functional factors and community factors were identified. We estimated RSRRs for peer groups and by safety net status using four hierarchical logistic regression models: "base" (HRRP model); "patient" (base plus patient factors); "community" (base plus community factors); and "full" (all factors). The proportion of hospitals penalized was calculated by safety net status. PATIENTS: 20,255 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (65+) with eligible index hospitalizations MAIN MEASURES: RSRRs KEY RESULTS: Half of safety net hospitals are in peer group 5. Compared with other hospitals, peer group 5 hospitals (most dual-eligibles) treated sicker, more functionally limited patients from socially disadvantaged groups. RSRRs decreased by 0.7% for peer groups 2 and 4 and 1.3% for peer group 5 under the patient and full (versus base) models. Measured performance improved after adjusting for patient risk factors for hospitals in peer group 4 and 5 hospitals, but worsened for those in peer groups 1, 2, and 3. Under the patient (versus base) model, fewer safety net hospitals (48.7% versus 51.3%) but more non-safety net hospitals (50.0% versus 49.1%) were penalized. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level risk adjustment decreased RSRRs for hospitals serving more at-risk patients and proportion of safety net hospitals penalized, while modestly increasing RSRRs and proportion of non-safety net hospitals penalized. Results suggest HRRP modifications may not fully account for hospital variation in patient-level risk.

Disparities in inpatient costs and outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at safety-net hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing disparities that exist at safety-net hospitals is crucial for crafting national healthcare reform policies. Healthcare disparities in performing elective neurosurgical procedures like anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at safety-net hospitals have not yet been examined. OBJECTIVE: We use the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a national all-payer healthcare database of inpatient admissions, to determine whether safety-net hospitals can provide equitable care after elective ACDF. METHODS: The NIS from 2002 to 2011 was queried for patients who received ACDF in the context of degenerative spine disease. Hospital safety-net burden was designated as low (LBH), medium (MBH), or high (HBH) based on the proportion of inpatient admissions that were billed as Medicaid, self-pay, or charity care. Significance was set at p < 0.001. RESULTS: A total of 219,433 admissions were included in this analysis. HBHs were more likely than LBHs to treat patients who were Black, Hispanic, on Medicaid, or had myelopathy (p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical factors, treatment at an HBH was associated with greater in-patient inflation-adjusted log cost (p < 0.001), but not with greater length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.04) or odds of an inpatient adverse event like death, incidental durotomy, surgical site infections, deep vein thromboses and others (OR 95 % CI = 0.86-1.42, p = 0.43) compared to LBHs. DISCUSSION: Safety net hospitals had greater inpatient costs, but no greater LOS or odds of inpatient adverse events after elective ACDF. These results demonstrate a need for policies that reduce the cost of performing ACDFs at SNHs.

Quality of care at safety-net hospitals and the impact on pay-for-performance reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance reimbursement ties hospital payments to standardized quality-of-care metrics. To the authors' knowledge, the impact of pay-for-performance reimbursement models on hospitals caring primarily for uninsured or underinsured patients remains poorly defined. The objective of the current study was to evaluate how standardized quality-of-care metrics vary by a hospital's propensity to care for uninsured or underinsured patients and demonstrate the potential impact that pay-for-performance reimbursement could have on hospitals caring for the underserved. METHODS: The authors identified 1,703,865 patients with cancer who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and treated at 1344 hospitals. Hospital safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of uninsured or Medicaid patients cared for by that hospital, categorizing hospitals into low-burden, medium-burden, and high-burden hospitals. The authors evaluated the impact of safety-net burden on concordance with 20 standardized quality-of-care measures, adjusting for differences in patient age, sex, stage of disease at diagnosis, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Patients who were treated at high-burden hospitals were more likely to be young, male, Black and/or Hispanic, and to reside in a low-income and low-educated region. High-burden hospitals had lower adherence to 13 of 20 quality measures compared with low-burden hospitals (all P < .05). Among the 350 high-burden hospitals, concordance with quality measures was found to be lowest for those caring for the highest percentage of uninsured or Medicaid patients, minority patients, and less educated patients (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals caring for uninsured or underinsured individuals have decreased quality-of-care measures. Under pay-for-performance reimbursement models, these lower quality-of-care scores could decrease hospital payments, potentially increasing health disparities for at-risk patients with cancer.

Association of hospital-area deprivation with hospital performance on health care associated infection rates in 2018.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and often preventable complications of care, with reduction emphasized in national policy. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced an HAI-focused Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program in 2015 to penalize poor-performing hospitals. Standardized infection ratios (SIRs) are used for comparisons between healthcare organizations, though they are not adjusted for socioeconomic risks known to impact infection. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship between hospital-area deprivation with reported SIRs and reimbursement penalties. METHODS: This was a cohort study using 2018 Hospital Compare, as well as area deprivation data and other hospital characteristics. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate associations between hospital-area deprivation and SIR reporting as well as payment reduction, adjusting for case mix index and hospital ownership. RESULTS: Of the 2102 unique hospitals in our study, 12.8% reported at least one worse than national benchmark SIR and 23.7% had a payment reduction. After adjustment, there was a 17% increased risk of reporting worse than benchmarked SIRs with quartile increases in deprivation (95% confidence interval: 5%-30%, P = .004). Despite this, there were no significant relationships between reimbursement penalties and ADI (risk ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.997-1.005, P = .567). CONCLUSIONS: This study documented a significant relationship between hospital-area deprivation and the risk of reporting worse than national benchmark SIRs. Though this did not appear to translate to Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program penalties in this dataset, it reinforces problems with the current use of SIRs for interhospital comparisons.

Upstream With A Small Paddle: How ACOs Are Working Against The Current To Meet Patients' Social Needs.

Despite interest in addressing social determinants of health to improve patient outcomes, little progress has been made in integrating social services with medical care. We aimed to understand how health care providers with strong motivation (for example, operating under new payment models) and commitment (for example, early adopters) fared at addressing patients' social needs. We collected qualitative data from twenty-two accountable care organizations (ACOs). These ACOs were early adopters and were working on initiatives to address social needs, including such common needs as transportation, housing, and food. However, even these ACOs faced significant difficulties in integrating social services with medical care. First, the ACOs were frequently "flying blind," lacking data on both their patients' social needs and the capabilities of potential community partners. Additionally, partnerships between ACOs and community-based organizations were critical but were only in the early stages of development. Innovation was constrained by ACOs' difficulties in determining how best to approach return on investment, given shorter funding cycles and longer time horizons to see returns on social determinants investments. Policies that could facilitate the integration of social determinants include providing sustainable funding, implementing local and regional networking initiatives to facilitate partnership development, and developing standardized data on community-based organizations' services and quality to aid providers that seek partners.

Disparities in Patient-Reported Interest in Web-Based Patient Portals: Survey at an Urban Academic Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Offering hospitalized patients' enrollment into a health system's patient portal may improve patient experience and engagement throughout the care continuum, especially across care transitions, but this process is less studied than portal engagement in the ambulatory setting. Patient portal disparities exist and may lead to differences in access or outcomes. As such, it is important to study upstream factors in a typical hospital workflow that could lead to those disparities in safety-net settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate sociodemographic characteristics associated with interest in a health care system's portal among hospitalized patients and reasons for no interest. METHODS: Nurses assessed interest in a Web-based patient portal, expressed by the patient as "yes" or "no," as part of the admission nursing assessment among patients at an academic urban safety-net hospital and recorded responses in the electronic health record (EHR), including reasons for no interest. We extracted patient responses from the EHR. RESULTS: Among 23,994 hospitalizations over a 2-year period, 35.90% (8614/ 23,994) reported an interest in a Web-based portal. Reasons for no interest included the following: not interested/other reason 41.68% (6410/15,380), no ability to use/access computers/internet 29.59% (4551/15,380), doesn't speak English 11.15% (1715/15,380), physically or mentally unable 8.70% (1338/15,380), does not want to say 8.70% (1338/15,380), security concerns 0.03% (4/15,380), and not useful 0.16% (24/15,380). Among the 16,507 unique patients included in this sample, portal interest was lower in older, African American, non-English speaking, and homeless patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: In a safety-net system, patient interest at the time of hospitalization in a Web-based enterprise portal-a required step before enrollment-is low with significant disparities by sociodemographic characteristics. To avoid worsening the digital divide, new strategies are needed and should be embedded within routine workflows to engage vulnerable safety-net patients in the use of Web-based health technologies.

Access to Orthopedic Care post Medicaid Expansion Through the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: As of January 2017, 32 states have decided to expand Medicaid through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The uninsured rate in the United States has decreased, but does the increased coverage translate to increased access to outpatient orthopedic care? Through a simulated patient telephone survey, this study aims to evaluate access to orthopedic surgeons for Medicaid patients in Louisiana. METHODS: A comprehensive list of potentially eligible orthopedic surgeons in the state of Louisiana was obtained from an online public database managed by the Louisiana Medicaid website (lamedicaid.com). This list represented all orthopedic surgeons that received a Medicaid payment within the six months prior to February 1st, 2017 (August 1st, 2016-January 31st, 2017). Using an internet search, we found that 309 orthopedic surgeons listed met the inclusion criteria and were practicing in 93 different clinical practices. Because several orthopedists practiced in the same group practice, and some practiced in multiple practices, we sampled unique clinical practices as opposed to individual providers. One telephone call was made to each practice in an attempt to secure an appointment for a simulated Medicaid patient. The average number of orthopedic surgeons per practice was 3.4, with the majority of practices (60%) being private practices with only one surgeon. RESULTS: Of the 93 practices in the study, only 17 (18.3%) offered an appointment. The 17 practices represented 41 orthopedic surgeons (13.3%) that were willing to accept new Medicaid patients. That number decreased to 22 (7.1%) if you remove the orthopedic surgeons practicing at safety-net facilities. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that although Medicaid expansion has decreased the uninsured rate, access to outpatient orthopedic care for Medicaid patients in Louisiana is still significantly limited.

Management of glioblastoma at safety-net hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) provide disproportionate care for underserved patients. Prior studies have identified poor outcomes, increased costs, and reduced access to certain complex, elective surgeries at SNHs. However, it is unknown whether similar patterns exist for the management of glioblastoma (GBM). We sought to determine if patients treated at HBHs receive equitable care for GBM, and if safety-net burden status impacts post-treatment survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for GBM patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015. Safety-net burden was defined as the proportion of Medicaid and uninsured patients treated at each hospital, and stratified as low (LBH), medium (MBH), and high-burden (HBH) hospitals. The impact of safety-net burden on the receipt of any treatment, trimodality therapy, gross total resection (GTR), radiation, or chemotherapy was investigated. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and overall survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 40,082 GBM patients at 1202 hospitals (352 LBHs, 553 MBHs, and 297 HBHs) were identified. Patients treated at HBHs were significantly less likely to receive trimodality therapy (OR = 0.75, p < 0.001), GTR (OR = 0.84, p < 0.001), radiation (OR = 0.73, p < 0.001), and chemotherapy (OR = 0.78, p < 0.001) than those treated at LBHs. Patients treated at HBHs had significantly increased 30-day (OR = 1.25, p = 0.031) and 90-day mortality (OR = 1.24, p = 0.001), and reduced overall survival (HR = 1.05, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: GBM patients treated at SNHs are less likely to receive standard-of-care therapies and have increased short- and long-term mortality. Additional research is needed to evaluate barriers to providing equitable care for GBM patients at SNHs.