Coverage and Access for Americans With Chronic Disease Under the Affordable Care Act: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Half of Americans have at least 1 chronic disease. Many in this group, particularly racial/ethnic minorities, lacked insurance coverage and access to care before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the ACA has had an effect on insurance coverage, access to care, and racial/ethnic disparities among adults with chronic disease. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental policy intervention. SETTING: Nationally representative, noninstitutionalized sample in the United States. PATIENTS: 606 277 adults aged 18 to 64 years with a chronic disease. INTERVENTION: Implementation of ACA provisions on 1 January 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported insurance coverage, having a checkup, having a personal physician, and not having to forgo a needed physician visit because of cost. RESULTS: After the ACA was implemented, insurance coverage increased by 4.9 percentage points (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.4), not having to forgo a physician visit increased by 2.4 percentage points (CI, 1.9 to 2.9), and having a checkup increased by 2.7 percentage points (CI, 2.2 to 3.4). Having a personal physician did not change (0.3 percentage points [CI, -0.2 to 0.8]). All outcomes varied considerably by state, and coverage increased more in states that expanded Medicaid. Although racial/ethnic minorities had greater improvements in some outcomes, approximately 1 in 5 black and 1 in 3 Hispanic persons with a chronic disease continued to lack coverage and access to care after ACA implementation. LIMITATION: The study examined data from only the first year of the ACA's major coverage expansion provisions. CONCLUSION: Although the ACA increased coverage and access for persons with chronic disease, substantial gaps remain, particularly for minorities and those in Medicaid nonexpansion states. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A genome scan in affected sib-pairs with familial vesicoureteral reflux identifies a locus on chromosome 5.

The basis for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is considered to be primarily genetic, with a 30-50% incidence of VUR in first-degree relatives of patients. The search for the causative gene or genes has been elusive, likely because of VUR being genetically heterogeneous with complex inheritance patterns. In this study, a genome-wide analysis of VUR with high-density single nucleotide polymorphisms was conducted with the aim of identifying susceptibility loci for VUR in 98 families with two or more affected children. Using the affected sib-pair method of analysis in 150 sib-pairs, we identified a genome-wide statistically significant linkage peak with an LOD score greater than 4 on chromosome 5 and two linkage peaks with LOD scores greater than 3.6 on chromosomes 13 and 18 were identified in these 98 families. These results suggested that multiple genes are likely to contribute to the formation of VUR phenotype. Further mapping of these linkage peaks may help identify the causative genes.

Ultrasound versus computerized tomography for evaluating urolithiasis.

PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the precision of ultrasound and computerized tomography to diagnose urinary stones in children and determined whether these differences in radiological findings have any impact on clinical management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 consecutive patients with suspected urolithiasis underwent computerized tomography and ultrasound. Two radiologists reviewed each study independently in blinded fashion. When a difference in findings was detected, 8 pediatric urologists reviewed the case. Clinical management was based on the results of each radiological test independently. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Compared to computerized tomography ultrasound had 76% sensitivity and 100% specificity. In 8 patients stone(s) seen on computerized tomography was not seen on ultrasound. The average size of missed stones was 2.3 mm. In 7 patients computerized tomography showed stones bilaterally but stone was seen on only 1 side on ultrasound. When evaluating the clinical impact, the ultrasound/computerized tomography discrepancy did not result in any significant change in clinical management except in 4 cases. In these cases ultrasound findings suggested that additional imaging was required and, thus, stone(s) in the distal ureter would have been identified on subsequent imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Although computerized tomography is more sensitive for detecting urolithiasis than ultrasound, the difference in usefulness between the 2 radiological tests may not be clinically significant. Given concerns for the potentially harmful cumulative long-term effect of radiation, ultrasound should be considered the first imaging test in children with suspected urolithiasis.