Rural health disparities in health care utilization for dementia in Minnesota.

PURPOSE: We visualized rural-urban differences in inpatient hospitalization and emergency department (ED) health care utilization (HCU) for older adults with dementia to understand the HCU of rural versus urban older adults in Minnesota and to examine in greater detail the variability of HCU in rural areas. METHODS: For 3 older adult age groups, we utilized Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (H-CUP) datasets from 2016 to 2018 to profile hospital admission rates, and ED visit rates related to dementia stratified by rurality and regions. Rates were visualized by spatial interpolation method. We then used logistic regression analysis adjusted by multiple covariates to evaluate rural-urban differences of the chance of having a dementia diagnosis in HCU. FINDINGS: Minnesota rural areas showed 17.6% lower age-adjusted rate (AAR) of dementia mortality than urban areas. AARs of ED visits for dementia were 12.4% higher in rural ZIP codes, whereas AARs of hospitalization were 24.7% lower. After controlling for neighborhood-level risk factors, such as income, education, health behaviors, and provider access, the odds ratios of having dementia diagnosis are 12% lower if an ED visit patient lives in rural as opposed to an urban area (OR = 0.88, P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to AAR, the fully adjusted data showed larger rural-urban predictors of having dementia diagnoses in hospitalizations and ED utilizations and demonstrated differences between AAR of ED visit and odds ratios of having dementia diagnosis. A regional comparison revealed that dementia ED visits were higher for Northeast MN compared to Minnesota's largest metropolitan region.

The impact of family physicians in rural maternity care.

BACKGROUND: Reduced access to maternity care in rural areas of the United States presents a significant burden to pregnant persons and infants. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of family physicians (FPs) on access to maternity care in rural United States hospitals, especially where other providers may not be available. METHODS: We administered a survey to 216 rural hospitals in 10 US states inquiring about the number of babies delivered from 2013 to 2017, the types of delivering physicians, and the maternity services offered. We calculated the percentage of rural hospitals in our sample where FPs performed vaginal deliveries, cesareans, and vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs), and the percentage of all babies delivered by FPs. We estimated the distance patients would have to travel for care if FPs were not providing care locally. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 185 rural hospitals. FPs delivered babies in 67% of these hospitals and were the only physicians who delivered babies in 27% of these hospitals. FPs provided VBAC at 18% and cesarean birth services at 46% of the rural hospitals, but with wide geographic differences. Many patients would have to drive an average of 86 miles round-trip to access care if those FPs were to stop delivering. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians are essential providers of maternity care in the rural United States. Family Medicine residency programs should ensure that trainees who intend to practice in rural locations have adequate maternity care training to maintain and expand access to maternity care for rural patients and their families.

Contributions of US Medical Schools to Primary Care (2003-2014): Determining and Predicting Who Really Goes Into Primary Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Schools of medicine in the United States may overstate the placement of their graduates in primary care. The purpose of this project was to determine the magnitude by which primary care output is overestimated by commonly used metrics and identify a more accurate method for predicting actual primary care output. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort study with a convenience sample of graduates from US medical schools granting the MD degree. We determined the actual practicing specialty of those graduates considered primary care based on the Residency Match Method by using a variety of online sources. Analyses compared the percentage of graduates actually practicing primary care between the Residency Match Method and the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method. RESULTS: The final study population included 17,509 graduates from 20 campuses across 14 university systems widely distributed across the United States and widely varying in published ranking for producing primary care graduates. The commonly used Residency Match Method predicted a 41.2% primary care output rate. The actual primary care output rate was 22.3%. The proposed new method, the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method, predicted a 17.1% primary care output rate, which was closer to the actual primary care rate. CONCLUSIONS: A valid, reliable method of predicting primary care output is essential for workforce training and planning. Medical schools, administrators, policy makers, and popular press should adopt this new, more reliable primary care reporting method.