Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Disparities in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with increased survival from cardiac arrest, yet bystander CPR rates are low in many communities. The overall prevalence of CPR training in the United States and associated individual-level disparities are unknown. We sought to measure the national prevalence of CPR training and hypothesized that older age and lower socioeconomic status would be independently associated with a lower likelihood of CPR training. METHODS AND RESULTS: We administered a cross-sectional telephone survey to a nationally representative adult sample. We assessed the demographics of individuals trained in CPR within 2 years (currently trained) and those who had been trained in CPR at some point in time (ever trained). The association of CPR training and demographic variables were tested using survey weighted logistic regression. Between September 2015 and November 2015, 9022 individuals completed the survey; 18% reported being currently trained in CPR, and 65% reported training at some point previously. For each year of increased age, the likelihood of being currently CPR trained or ever trained decreased (currently trained: odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P<0.01; ever trained: OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P=0.04). Furthermore, there was a greater then 4-fold difference in odds of being currently CPR trained from the 30-39 to 70-79 year old age groups (95% CI, 0.10-0.23). Factors associated with a lower likelihood of CPR training were lesser educational attainment and lower household income (P<0.01 for each of these variables). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of respondents reported current training in CPR. Older age, lesser education, and lower income were associated with reduced likelihood of CPR training. These findings illustrate important gaps in US CPR education and suggest the need to develop tailored CPR training efforts to address this variability.

A randomized controlled trial of co-payment elimination: the CHORD trial.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve adherence by reducing co-payments through value-based insurance design are become more prevalent despite limited evidence of improved health outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether eliminating patient co-payments for blood pressure medications improves blood pressure control. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The Collaboration to Reduce Disparities in Hypertension (CHORD) was a randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up conducted among patients from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh Veterans Administration Medical Centers. We enrolled 479 patients with poorly controlled systolic blood pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to: a) receive reductions in co-payments from $8 to $0 per medication per month for each antihypertensive prescription filled, b) a computerized behavioral intervention (CBI), c) both co-pay reduction and CBI, or d) usual care. Our main outcome measure was change in systolic blood pressure from enrollment to 12 months post enrollment. We also measured adherence using the medication possession ratio in a subset of participants. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions between the co-payment interventions and the CBI interventions. There was no relative difference in the change in medication possession ratio between baseline and 12 months (0.05% and -.90% in control and incentive groups, respectively; P = .74) or in continuous medication gaps of 30, 60, or 90 days. Blood pressure decreased among all participants, but to a similar degree between the financial incentive and control groups. Systolic pressure within the incentive group dropped 13.2 mm Hg versus 15.2 mm Hg for the control group (difference = 2.0; 95% CI, -2.3 to 6.3; P = .36). The proportion of patients with blood pressure under control at 12 months was 29.5% in the incentive group versus 33.9 in the control group (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with poorly controlled blood pressure, financial incentives--as implemented in this trial--that reduced patient cost sharing for blood pressure medications did not improve medication adherence or blood pressure control.

A randomized controlled trial of negative co-payments: the CHORD trial.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based insurance designs are being widely used. We undertook this study to examine whether a financial incentive that lowered co-payments for blood pressure medications below $0 improved blood pressure control among patients with poorly controlled hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants from 3 Pennsylvania hospitals (n = 337) were randomly assigned to: a) be paid $8 per medication per month for filling blood pressure prescriptions, b) a computerized behavioral intervention (CBI), c) both payment and CBI, or d) usual care. The primary outcome was change in blood pressure between baseline and 12 months post enrollment. We also measured adherence using the medication possession ratio in a subset of participants. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions between the incentive and the CBI interventions. There were no significant changes in medication possession ratio in the treatment group. Blood pressure decreased among all participants, but to a similar degree between the financial incentive and control groups. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) dropped 13.7 mm Hg for the incentive group versus 10.0 mm Hg for the control group (difference = ­3.7; 95% CI, ­9.0 to 1.6; P = .17). The proportion of patients with blood pressure under control 12 months post enrollment was 35.6% of the incentive group versus 27.7% of the control group (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.5; P = .19). Diabetics in the incentive group had an average drop in SBP of 12.7 mm Hg between baseline and 12 months compared with 4.0 mm Hg in the control group (P = .02). Patients in the incentive group without diabetes experienced average SBP reductions of 15.0 mm Hg, compared with 16.3 mm Hg for control group nondiabetics (P = .71). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with poorly controlled blood pressure, financial incentives­as implemented in this trial­did not improve blood pressure control or adherence except among patients with diabetes.

US veterans use vitamins and supplements as substitutes for prescription medication.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and supplements are the most commonly used form of complementary and alternative medicine in the United States. Growing research suggests that patients substitute vitamins and supplements for their prescription medications. The reasons might include cost of prescription medications and discordant patient and doctor health belief systems. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of substitution of vitamins and supplements for prescription medications among veterans who receive care in the VA health care system and whether substitution is associated with prescription rationing due to cost, treatment beliefs, or distrust of the health system. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational survey. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients (n=275) at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center. MEASURES: Medication substitution, prescription medication rationing, treatment beliefs, and health system distrust were measured with structured instruments. Multivariate logistic regression was performed with substitution as the dependent variable. RESULTS: A significant number of primary care patients in the VA system use vitamins and supplements 206 (75%). The prevalence of medication substitution is high 48 (18%). Medication substitution is strongly associated with prescription rationing due to cost (adjusted odds ratio 6.3, 95% confidence interval: 2.0-19.5, P=0.001). Similarly, greater belief in complementary and alternative approaches to care positively predicts medication substitution (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.15, P=0.011). There is no significant association between health system distrust and likelihood of medication substitution. CONCLUSIONS: Medication substitution is prevalent in this sample of inner city primary care patients who receive care in the VA system. Cost of prescriptions and belief in the value of complementary and alternative approaches to care appear to be associated with this patient-driven treatment decision.

Racial variations in the utilization of knee and hip joint replacement: an introduction and review of the most recent literature.

Elective knee and hip joint replacements are cost-effective treatment options in the management of end-stage knee and hip osteoarthritis. Yet there are marked racial disparities in the utilization of this treatment even though the prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis does not vary greatly by race or ethnicity. This article briefly reviews the rationale for understanding this disparity, the evidence-base that supports the existence of racial or ethnic disparity as well as some known potential explanations. Also, briefly summarized here are the most recent original research articles that focus on race and ethnicity and total joint replacement in the management of chronic knee or hip pain and osteoarthritis. The article concludes with a call for more research, examining patient, provider and system-level factors that underlie this disparity and the design of evidence-based, targeted interventions to eliminate or reduce any inequities.