Relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers among cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between insurance status and interhospital transfers has not been adequately researched among cancer patients. Hence this study aimed for understanding this relationship using a nationally representative database. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data collected during 2010-2016 and included all cancer hospitalization between 18 and 64 years of age. Interhospital transfers were compared based on insurance status (Medicare, Medicaid, private, and uninsured). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the odds of interhospital transfers based on insurance status, after adjusting for many covariates. RESULTS: There were 3,580,908 weighted cancer hospitalizations, of which 72,353 (2.02%) had interhospital transfers. Uninsured patients had significantly higher rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P = 0.005) and private insurance (P < 0.001). Privately insured patients had significantly lower rates of interhospital transfers, compared to those with Medicare (P < 0.001) and Medicaid (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds of having interhospital transfers were significantly higher among uninsured (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.57, 95% CI: 1.45-1.69), Medicare (aOR, 1.38, 95% CI: 1.32-1.45) and Medicaid (aOR, 1.23, 95% CI: 1.16-1.30) patients when compared to those with private insurance coverages. CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients, uninsured and Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to experience interhospital transfers. In addition to medical reasons, factors such as affordability and socioeconomic status are influencing interhospital transfer decisions, indicating existing healthcare disparities. Further studies should focus on identifying the causal associations between factors explored in this study as well as additional unexplored factors.

Effect of Aspirin Use on the Adverse Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triggers multiple components of the immune system and causes inflammation of endothelial walls across vascular beds, resulting in respiratory failure, arterial and venous thrombosis, myocardial injury, and multi-organ failure leading to death. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, aspirin was suggested for the treatment of symptomatic individuals, given its analgesic, antipyretic, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and antiviral effects. This study aimed to evaluate the association of aspirin use with various clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: This was a retrospective study involving patients aged ≥ 18 years and hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to October 2020. Primary outcomes were acute cardiovascular events (ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), type 1 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), acute congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute stroke) and death. Secondary outcomes were respiratory failure, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE). Results: Of 376 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 128 were taking aspirin. Significant proportions of native Americans were hospitalized for COVID-19 in both aspirin (22.7%) and non-aspirin (24.6%) groups. Between aspirin and non-aspirin groups, no significant differences were found with regard to mechanical ventilator support (21.1% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.16), acute cardiovascular events (7.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.32), acute DVT/PE (3.9% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.9), readmission rate (13.3% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.91) and mortality (23.4% vs. 20.2%, P = 0.5); however, the median duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter (7 vs. 9 days, P = 0.04) and median length of hospitalization was significantly longer (5.5 vs. 4 days, P = 0.01) in aspirin group compared to non-aspirin group. Conclusion: No significant differences were found in acute cardiovascular events, acute DVT/PE, mechanical ventilator support, and mortality rate between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were taking aspirin compared to those not taking aspirin. However, larger studies are required to confirm our findings.

Hospitalization rates for complications due to systemic therapy in the United States.

The aim of this study was to estimate the trends and burdens associated with systemic therapy-related hospitalizations, using nationally representative data. National Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2016 was used to identify systemic therapy-related complications using ICD-9 and ICD-10 external causes-of-injury codes. The primary outcome was hospitalization rates, while secondary outcomes were cost and in-hospital mortality. Overall, there were 443,222,223 hospitalizations during the study period, of which 2,419,722 were due to complications of systemic therapy. The average annual percentage change of these hospitalizations was 8.1%, compared to - 0.5% for general hospitalizations. The three most common causes for hospitalization were anemia (12.8%), neutropenia (10.8%), and sepsis (7.8%). Hospitalization rates had the highest relative increases for sepsis (1.9-fold) and acute kidney injury (1.6-fold), and the highest relative decrease for dehydration (0.21-fold) and fever of unknown origin (0.35-fold). Complications with the highest total charges were anemia ($4.6 billion), neutropenia ($3.0 billion), and sepsis ($2.5 billion). The leading causes of in-hospital mortality associated with systemic therapy were sepsis (15.8%), pneumonia (7.6%), and acute kidney injury (7.0%). Promoting initiatives such as rule OP-35, improving access to and providing coordinated care, developing systems leading to early identification and management of symptoms, and expanding urgent care access, can decrease these hospitalizations and the burden they carry on the healthcare system.

Recent Health Care Expenditure Trends Among Adult Cancer Survivors in United States, 2009-2016.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand recent trends in direct health care expenditures among cancer survivors using novel cost-estimation methods and a nationally representative database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of 193,003 adults, ≥18 years of age, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey during the years 2009-2016. Manning and Mullahy two-part model was used to calculate adjusted mean and incremental medical expenditures after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The mean direct annual health care expenditure among cancer survivors ($13,025.0 [$12,572.0 to $13,478.0]) was nearly 3 times greater than noncancer participants ($4689.3 [$4589.2 to $4789.3]) and were mainly spent on inpatient services, office-based visits, and prescription medications. Cancer survivors had an additional health care expenditure of $4407.6 ($3877.6, $4937.6) per person per year, compared with noncancer participants after adjusting for covariates (P<0.001). The total mean annual direct health care expenditure for cancer survivors increased from $12,960.0 (95% confidence interval: $12,291.0-$13,628.0) in 2009-2010 to $13,807.0 ($12,828.0 to $14,787.0) in 2015-2016. CONCLUSIONS: Given the higher health care expenditures among cancer survivors and the increasing prevalence of cancers, cost-saving measures should be planned through multidisciplinary initiatives, collaborative research, and importantly, health care planning and policy changes. Our findings could be helpful in streamlining health care resources and interventions, developing national health care coverage policies, and possibly considering radically new insurance strategies for cancer survivors.