Lack of Diversity in Transplant Hepatology Fellowship Program Directorship.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in medicine has garnered significant attention in recent medical workforce research, as studies consistently reveal the beneficial impact of race-concordant visits on patient outcomes, adherence, and satisfaction. While diversity among residency and fellowship program directors has been studied in other fields, little is known about the diversity within niche fellowship programs such as transplant hepatology. This study aims to investigate the demographic information of program directors in transplant hepatology fellowship programs. METHODS: We identified transplant hepatology fellowship programs and their program directors from the American College of Gastroenterology website. Multiple reviewers compiled demographic and training information from internet searches, which was analyzed using chi-square analysis. In assessing racial diversity, researchers identified perceived race using multiple indicators, including name, physical appearance, and affiliation with identity associations. RESULTS: Our study analyzed data from 72 program directors, with 61.11% being male. Among the program directors, 55.6% appeared non-Hispanic White, 36.11% appeared Asian, while apparent Hispanics and Blacks represented 5.56% and 4.17%, respectively. Our analysis also found that male program directors appeared largely non-Hispanic white (72.72%) and were significantly more likely to be professors (p = 0.045) rather than associate or assistant professors. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that transplant hepatology fellowship programs are primarily led by male and non-Hispanic White physicians. To attract underrepresented medical students and residents, it is critical to make meaningful efforts to improve diversity and ensure equitable representation of leaders. Future research should focus on developing strategies to build a more inclusive workforce while addressing existing leadership inequities.

Association of Medicare Program Type with Health Care Access, Utilization, and Affordability among Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Advantage program provides care to nearly half of Medicare beneficiaries, including a rapidly growing population of cancer survivors. Despite its increased adoption, it is still unknown whether or not the program improves healthcare access, outcomes, and affordability for cancer survivors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years with a self-reported history of cancer from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between Medicare program type (Medicare Advantage vs. traditional Medicare) and measures of healthcare access, acute care utilization, and affordability. RESULTS: We identified 4451 beneficiaries with a history of cancer, corresponding to 26.6 million weighted cancer survivors in 2019. Of the beneficiaries, 35.8% were enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whereas 64.2% were enrolled in traditional Medicare. The age, sex, racial and ethnic composition, household income, primary site of cancer, and comorbidity burden of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries were similar. In the adjusted analysis, there were no differences in healthcare access or acute care utilization between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. However, cancer survivors enrolled in Medicare Advantage were more likely to worry about (34.3% vs. 29.4%; aOR, 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.5)) or have problems paying (13.6% vs. 11.1%; aOR, 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8)) medical bills. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with cancer had better healthcare access, affordability, or acute care utilization than traditional Medicare beneficiaries did. Furthermore, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to report financial strain and have difficulty paying for their medical bills than were those with traditional Medicare. Despite the generous benefits and attractive incentives, Medicare Advantage plans may not be more cost-effective than traditional Medicare is for cancer survivors. Our study informs ongoing congressional deliberations to re-evaluate the role of Medicare Advantage in promoting equity among beneficiaries with cancer.

Examining Public Communication About Surgical Cancer Care on Twitter.

INTRODUCTION: Social media platforms like Twitter are highly utilized for communicating about cancer care. Although surgery is the primary curative treatment for solid malignancies, little is known about online communication behaviors regarding this treatment modality. This study tracked online discussions and characterized participants to better characterize the content of public communication about surgical cancer care. METHODS: Tweets referencing cancer surgery were collected from 2018 to 2021 using Twitter's Application Programming Interface. Metadata (e.g., profile biography, follower count) was used to predict user demographic information. Natural language processing was performed using Latent Dirichlet Allocation to identify common themes of conversation and mentioned cancer sites. RESULTS: There were 442,840 tweets about cancer surgery by 262,168 users, including individuals (65%), influencers (1.5%), surgeons (1%), and oncologists (0.5%). Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, tweets mentioning delays in care increased by 21.7% (1971-57,846 tweets). Individuals commonly mentioned surgical costs (20.3%) and postoperative recovery (21.6%). Surgeons and oncologists frequently mentioned research (52.7%), but infrequently mentioned community support (7.8%) or survivorship (9.3%). Relative to their prevalence, neurologic cancers were most discussed (231 tweets per 1000 operations) while thoracic (29 tweets per 1000 operations) and urologic cancers were least discussed (12 tweets per 1000 operations). CONCLUSIONS: Twitter was utilized by patients to discuss real-time issues such as COVID-19-related surgical delays and the financial burden of cancer surgery. Further efforts to improve community outreach may be optimized by targeting greater discussion of undermentioned cancer types and encouraging clinicians to participate in discussions about community-centered themes.