Association of Race and Ethnicity With High Longevity Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Under the US Kidney Allocation System.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The US Kidney Allocation System (KAS) prioritizes candidates with a≤20% estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) to receive high-longevity kidneys defined by a≤20% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). Use of EPTS in the KAS deprioritizes candidates with older age, diabetes, and longer dialysis durations. We assessed whether this use also disadvantages race and ethnicity minority candidates, who are younger but more likely to have diabetes and longer durations of kidney failure requiring dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult candidates for and recipients of kidney transplantation represented in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2015 through December 2020. EXPOSURE: Race and ethnicity. OUTCOME: Age-adjusted assignment to≤20% EPTS, transplantation of a≤20% KDPI kidney, and posttransplant survival in longevity-matched recipients by race and ethnicity. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Multivariable logistic regression, Fine-Gray competing risks survival analysis, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: The cohort included 199,444 candidates (7% Asian, 29% Black, 19% Hispanic or Latino, and 43% White) listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Non-White candidates had significantly higher rates of diabetes, longer dialysis duration, and were younger than White candidates. Adjusted for age, Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino candidates had significantly lower odds of having a ETPS score of≤20% (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.54], and 0.49 [95% CI, 0.47-0.51]), and were less likely to receive a≤20% KDPI kidney (sub-hazard ratio, 0.70 [0.66-0.75], 0.89 [0.87-0.92], and 0.73 [0.71-0.76]) compared with White candidates. Among recipients with≤20% EPTS scores transplanted with a≤20% KDPI deceased donor kidney, Asian and Hispanic recipients had lower posttransplant mortality (HR, 0.45 [0.27-0.77] and 0.63 [0.47-0.86], respectively) and Black recipients had higher but not statistically significant posttransplant mortality (HR, 1.22 [0.99-1.52]) compared with White recipients. LIMITATIONS: Provider reported race and ethnicity data and 5-year post transplant follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The US kidney allocation system is less likely to identify race and ethnicity minority candidates as having a≤20% EPTS score, which triggers allocation of high-longevity deceased donor kidneys. These findings should inform the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network about how to remedy the race and ethnicity disparities introduced through KAS's current approach of allocating allografts with longer predicted longevity to recipients with longer estimated posttransplant survival. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The US Kidney Allocation System prioritizes giving high-longevity, high-quality kidneys to patients on the waiting list who have a high estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) score. EPTS is calculated based on the patient's age, whether the patient has diabetes, whether the patient has a history of organ transplantation, and the number of years spent on dialysis. Our analyses show that Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino patients were less likely to receive high-longevity kidneys compared with White patients, despite having similar or better posttransplant survival outcomes.

Intensity and Variation of Health Navigator Support: Addressing Medical and Social Needs of Diabetes Patients in East Oakland.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly screening and referring patients for unmet social needs (e.g., food insecurity). Little is known about the intensity of support necessary to address unmet needs, how this support may vary by circumstance or time (duration), or the factors that may contribute to this variation. OBJECTIVE: Describe health navigator services and the effort required to support patients with complex needs at a community health center in East Oakland, CA. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of de-identified patient contact notes (e.g., progress notes). PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of patients (n = 27) enrolled in diabetes education and referred to health navigators. INTERVENTIONS: Navigators provide education on managing conditions (e.g., diabetes), initiate and track medical and social needs referrals, and navigate patients to medical and social care organizations. MAIN MEASURES: Descriptive statistics for prevalence, mean, median, and range values of patient contacts and navigation services. We described patterns and variation in navigation utilization (both contacts and navigation services) based on types of need. KEY RESULTS: We identified 811 unmet social and medical needs that occurred over 710 contacts with health navigators; 722 navigation services were used to address these needs. Patients were supported by navigators for a median of 9 months; approximately 25% of patients received support for > 1 year. We categorized patients into 3 different levels of social risk, accounting for patient complexity and resource needs. The top tertile (n = 9; 33%) accounted for the majority of resource utilization, based on health navigator contacts (68%) and navigation services (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The required intensity and support given to meet patients' medical and social needs is substantial and has significant variation. Meeting the needs of complex patients will require considerable investments in human capital, and a risk stratification system to help identify those most in need of services.

Delivering COVID-19 Vaccine via Trusted Social Services: Program Evaluation Results from the Chicagoland CEAL Program.

To describe the reach, implementation, and sustainability of COVID-19 vaccination programs delivered by social service community organizations. Five academic institutions in the Chicagoland CEAL (Community Engagement Alliance) program partnered with 17 community organizations from September 2021-April 2022. Interviews, community organizations program implementation tracking documents, and health department vaccination data were used to conduct the evaluation. A total of 269 events were held and 5,432 COVID-19 vaccines delivered from May 2021-April 2022. Strategies that worked best included offering vaccinations in community settings with flexible and reliable hours; pairing vaccinations with ongoing social services; giving community organizations flexibility to adjust programs; offering incentives; and vaccinating staff first. These strategies and partnership structures supported vaccine uptake, community organization alignment with their missions and communities' needs, and trust. Community organizations delivering social services are local community experts and trusted messengers. Pairing social service delivery with COVID-19 vaccination built individual and community agency. Giving COs creative control over program implementation enhanced trust and vaccine delivery. When given appropriate resources and control, community organizations can quickly deliver urgently needed health services in a public health crisis.

Integrated Interventions to Bridge Medical and Social Care for People Living with Diabetes.

Social drivers of health impact health outcomes for patients with diabetes, and are areas of interest to health systems, researchers, and policymakers. To improve population health and health outcomes, organizations are integrating medical and social care, collaborating with community partners, and seeking sustainable financing with payors. We summarize promising examples of integrated medical and social care from the Merck Foundation Bridging the Gap: Reducing Disparities in Diabetes Care initiative. The initiative funded eight organizations to implement and evaluate integrated medical and social care models, aiming to build a value case for services that are traditionally not eligible for reimbursement (e.g., community health workers, food prescriptions, patient navigation). This article summarizes promising examples and future opportunities for integrated medical and social care across three themes: (1) primary care transformation (e.g., social risk stratification) and workforce capacity (e.g., lay health worker interventions), (2) addressing individual social needs and structural changes, and (3) payment reform. Integrated medical and social care that advances health equity requires a significant paradigm shift in healthcare financing and delivery.

"Everything in One Place": Stakeholder Perceptions of Integrated Medical and Social Care for Diabetes Patients in Western Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes frequently have both medical- and health-related social needs that must be addressed for optimal disease management. Growing evidence suggests that intersectoral partnerships between health systems and community-based organizations may effectively support improved health outcomes for patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe stakeholders' perceptions of the implementation factors associated with a diabetes management program, an intervention involving coordinated clinical and social services supports to address both medical- and health-related social needs. This intervention delivers proactive care alongside community partnerships, and leverages innovative financing mechanisms. DESIGN: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants included adults (18 years or older) who were patients with diabetes and essential staff (e.g., members of a diabetes care team, health care administrators) and leaders of community-based organizations. APPROACH: We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to develop a semi-structured interview guide designed to elicit perspectives from patients and essential staff on their experiences within an outpatient center to support patients with chronic conditions (the CCR) as a part of an intervention to improve care for patients with diabetes. KEY RESULTS: Interviews illuminated three key takeaways: (1) team-based care held an important role in promoting accountability across stakeholders motivating patient engagement and positive perceptions, (2) mission-driven alignment across the health care and community sectors was needed to synergize a broad range of efforts, and (3) global payment models allowing for flexible resource allocation can invaluably support the appropriate care being directed where it is needed the most whether medical or social services. CONCLUSIONS: The views and experiences of patient and essential staff stakeholder groups reported here thematically according to CFIR domains may inform the development of other chronic disease interventions that address medical- and health-related social needs in additional settings.

Trust Dynamics of Community Health Workers in Frontier Food Banks and Pantries: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Medical mistrust has had devastating consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in rural communities. Community Health Workers (CHWs) have been shown to build trust, but there is little research on trust-building by CHWs in rural communities. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the strategies that CHWs use to build trust with participants of health screenings in frontier Idaho. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study based on in-person, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed CHWs (N=6) and coordinators of food distribution sites (FDSs; e.g., food banks and pantries) where CHWs hosted a health screening (N=15). APPROACH: Interviews were conducted with CHWs and FDS coordinators during FDS-based health screenings. Interview guides were initially designed to assess facilitators and barriers to health screenings. Trust and mistrust emerged as dominant themes that determined nearly every aspect of the FDS-CHW collaboration, and thus became the focus of interviews. KEY RESULTS: CHWs encountered high levels of interpersonal trust, but low institutional and generalized trust, among the coordinators and clients of rural FDSs. When working to reach FDS clients, CHWs anticipated confronting mistrust due to their association with the healthcare system and government, especially if CHWs were perceived as "outsiders." Hosting health screenings at FDSs, which were trusted community organizations, was important for CHWs to begin building trust with FDS clients. CHWs also volunteered at FDS locations to build interpersonal trust before hosting health screenings. Interviewees agreed that trust building was a time- and resource-intensive process. CONCLUSIONS: CHWs build interpersonal trust with high-risk rural residents, and should be integral parts of trust building initiatives in rural areas. FDSs are vital partners in reaching low-trust populations, and may provide an especially promising environment to reach some rural community members. It is unclear whether trust in individual CHWs also extends to the broader healthcare system.

Fair Allocation of Scarce Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for nonhospitalized patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and for individuals exposed to COVID-19 as postexposure prophylaxis. EUAs for oral antiviral drugs have also been issued. Due to increased demand because of the Delta variant, the federal government resumed control over the supply and asked states to ration doses. As future variants (eg, the Omicron variant) emerge, further rationing may be required. We identify relevant ethical principles (ie, benefiting people and preventing harm, equal concern, and mitigating health inequities) and priority groups for access to therapies based on an integrated approach to population health and medical factors (eg, urgently scarce healthcare workers, persons in disadvantaged communities hard hit by COVID-19). Using priority categories to allocate scarce therapies effectively operationalizes important ethical values. This strategy is preferable to the current approach of categorical exclusion or inclusion rules based on vaccination, immunocompromise status, or older age, or the ad hoc consideration of clinical risk factors.

Eliminating Explicit and Implicit Biases in Health Care: Evidence and Research Needs.

Health care providers hold negative explicit and implicit biases against marginalized groups of people such as racial and ethnic minoritized populations. These biases permeate the health care system and affect patients via patient-clinician communication, clinical decision making, and institutionalized practices. Addressing bias remains a fundamental professional responsibility of those accountable for the health and wellness of our populations. Current interventions include instruction on the existence and harmful role of bias in perpetuating health disparities, as well as skills training for the management of bias. These interventions can raise awareness of provider bias and engage health care providers in establishing egalitarian goals for care delivery, but these changes are not sustained, and the interventions have not demonstrated change in behavior in the clinical or learning environment. Unfortunately, the efficacy of these interventions may be hampered by health care providers' work and learning environments, which are rife with discriminatory practices that sustain the very biases US health care professions are seeking to diminish. We offer a conceptual model demonstrating that provider-level implicit bias interventions should be accompanied by interventions that systemically change structures inside and outside the health care system if the country is to succeed in influencing biases and reducing health inequities.

Frontline Physician Perspectives on Their Experiences Working During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic physicians worked on the front lines, immersed in uncertainty. Research into perspectives of frontline physicians has lagged behind clinical innovation throughout the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To inform ongoing and future efforts in the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a qualitative exploration of physician perspectives of the effects of policies and procedures as well as lessons learned while caring for patients during the height of the first wave in the spring of 2020. DESIGN: A confidential survey was emailed to a convenience sample. Survey questions included demographic data, participant role in the pandemic, and geographic location. Eleven open-ended questions explored their perspectives and advice they would give going forward. Broad areas covered included COVID-19-specific education, discharge planning, unintended consequences for patient care, mental health conditions to anticipate, and personal/institutional factors influencing workforce well-being amid the crisis. PARTICIPANTS: We received fifty-five surveys from May through July 2020. Demographic data demonstrated sampling of frontline physicians working in various epicenters in the USA, and diversity in gender, race/ethnicity, and clinical specialty. APPROACH: Inductive thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: Four themes emerged through data analysis: (1) Leadership can make or break morale; (2) Leadership should engage frontline workers throughout decision-making processes; (3) Novelty of COVID-19 led to unintended consequences in care delivery; and (4) Mental health sequelae will be profound and pervasive. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants demonstrated the benefit of engaging frontline physicians as important stakeholders in policy generation, evaluation, and revision; they highlighted challenges, successes, unintended consequences, and lessons learned from various epicenters in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is much to be learned from the early COVID-19 pandemic crisis; our participants' insights elucidate opportunities to examine institutional performance, effect policy change, and improve crisis management in order to better prepare for this and future pandemics.

Population Health Innovations and Payment to Address Social Needs Among Patients and Communities With Diabetes.

Policy Points Population health efforts to improve diabetes care and outcomes should identify social needs, support social needs referrals and coordination, and partner health care organizations with community social service agencies and resources. Current payment mechanisms for health care services do not adequately support critical up-front investments in infrastructure to address medical and social needs, nor provide sufficient incentives to make addressing social needs a priority. Alternative payment models and value-based payment should provide up-front funding for personnel and infrastructure to address social needs and should incentivize care that addresses social needs and outcomes sensitive to social risk. CONTEXT: Increasingly, health care organizations are implementing interventions to improve outcomes for patients with complex health and social needs, including diabetes, through cross-sector partnerships with nonmedical organizations. However, fee-for-service and many value-based payment systems constrain options to implement models of care that address social and medical needs in an integrated fashion. We present experiences of eight grantee organizations from the Bridging the Gap: Reducing Disparities in Diabetes Care initiative to improve diabetes outcomes by transforming primary care and addressing social needs within evolving payment models. METHODS: Analysis of eight grantees through site visits, technical assistance calls, grant applications, and publicly available data from US census data (2017) and from Health Resources and Services Administration Uniform Data System Resources data (2018). Organizations represent a range of payment models, health care settings, market factors, geographies, populations, and community resources. FINDINGS: Grantees are implementing strategies to address medical and social needs through augmented staffing models to support high-risk patients with diabetes (e.g., community health workers, behavioral health specialists), information technology innovations (e.g., software for social needs referrals), and system-wide protocols to identify high-risk populations with gaps in care. Sites identify and address social needs (e.g., food insecurity, housing), invest in human capital to support social needs referrals and coordination (e.g., embedding social service employees in clinics), and work with organizations to connect to community resources. Sites encounter challenges accessing flexible up-front funding to support infrastructure for interventions. Value-based payment mechanisms usually reward clinical performance metrics rather than measures of population health or social needs interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Federal, state, and private payers should support critical infrastructure to address social needs and incentivize care that addresses social needs and outcomes sensitive to social risk. Population health strategies that address medical and social needs for populations living with diabetes will need to be tailored to a range of health care organizations, geographies, populations, community partners, and market factors. Payment models should support and incentivize these strategies for sustainability.

COVID-19 Among African Americans: An Action Plan for Mitigating Disparities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded across the United States, troubling disparities in mortality have emerged between different racial groups, particularly African Americans and Whites. Media reports, a growing body of COVID-19-related literature, and long-standing knowledge of structural racism and its myriad effects on the African American community provide important lenses for understanding and addressing these disparities.However, troubling gaps in knowledge remain, as does a need to act. Using the best available evidence, we present risk- and place-based recommendations for how to effectively address these disparities in the areas of data collection, COVID-19 exposure and testing, health systems collaboration, human capital repurposing, and scarce resource allocation.Our recommendations are supported by an analysis of relevant bioethical principles and public health practices. Additionally, we provide information on the efforts of Chicago, Illinois' mayoral Racial Equity Rapid Response Team to reduce these disparities in a major urban US setting.

Incorporating Health Equity Into COVID-19 Reopening Plans: Policy Experimentation in California.

California has focused on health equity in the state's COVID-19 reopening plan. The Blueprint for a Safer Economy assigns each of California's 58 counties into 1 of 4 tiers based on 2 metrics: test positivity rate and adjusted case rate. To advance to the next less-restrictive tier, counties must meet that tier's test positivity and adjusted case rate thresholds. In addition, counties must have a plan for targeted investments within disadvantaged communities, and counties with more than 106 000 residents must meet an equity metric. California's explicit incorporation of health equity into its reopening plan underscores the interrelated fate of its residents during the COVID-19 pandemic and creates incentives for action. This article evaluates the benefits and challenges of this novel health equity focus, and outlines recommendations for other US states to address disparities in their reopening plans.

Correction to: Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record.

In the HTML version of this paper, Ms. Goddu was incorrectly listed. The correct citation should be AP Goddu. Exposure to the stigmatizing language note was associated with more negative attitudes towards the patient (20.3 stigmatizing vs. 25.1 neutral, p < 0.001). Reading the stigmatizing language note was associated with less aggressive management of the patient's pain (4.7 stigmatizing vs. 5.3 neutral, p < 0.001).

Financing Diabetes Care in the U.S. Health System: Payment Innovations for Addressing the Medical and Social Determinants of Health.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review innovations in health care financing promoting health system investments in addressing medical and social determinants of health (SDH) for patients with diabetes. RECENT FINDINGS: Particular payment models implemented in the public and private sectors increasingly offer flexibility in health care organizations (HCOs) to allocate resources towards helping patients with diabetes overcome the medical and socio-economic problems driving poor population and individual health. The barriers imposed by the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) payment model to incorporating SDH into health care delivery across the health system are being overcome with new payment approaches rewarding the quality of care provided rather than strictly the volume of health services rendered. Evidence suggests health care financing changes will facilitate the realization of health reform goals to provide the right care to the right people at the right time through the expansion of the role of integrated care teams that can address patients' medical and health-related social needs.