Association of program-specific variation in bariatric surgery volume for Medicaid patients and access to care: a tale of inequality?

BACKGROUND: Although patients with lower socioeconomic status are at higher risk of obesity, bariatric surgery utilization among patients with Medicaid is low and may be due to program-specific variation in access. Our goal was to compare bariatric surgery programs by percentage of Medicaid cases and to determine if variation in distribution of patients with Medicaid could be linked to adverse outcomes. METHODS: Using a state-wide bariatric-specific data registry that included 43 programs performing 97,207 cases between 2006 and 2020, we identified all patients with Medicaid insurance (n = 4780, 4.9%). Bariatric surgery programs were stratified into quartiles according to the percentage of Medicaid cases performed and we compared program-specific characteristics as well as baseline patient characteristics, risk-adjusted complication rates and wait times between top and bottom quartiles. RESULTS: Program-specific distribution of Medicaid cases varied between 0.69 and 22.4%. Programs in the top quartile (n = 11) performed 18,885 cases in total, with a mean of 13% for Medicaid patients, while programs in the bottom quartile (n = 11) performed 32,447 cases in total, with a mean of 1%. Patients undergoing surgery at programs in the top quartile were more likely to be Black (20.2% vs 13.5%, p < 0.0001), have diabetes (35.1% vs 29.5%, p < 0.0001), hypertension (55.1% vs 49.6%, p < 0.0001) and hyperlipidemia (47.6% vs 45.2%, p < 0.0001). Top quartile programs also had higher complication rates (8.4% vs 6.6%, p < 0.0001), extended length of stay (5.6% vs 4.0%, p < 0.0001), Emergency Department visits (8.1% vs 6.5%, p < 0.0001) and readmissions (4.7% vs 3.9%, p < 0.0001). Median time from initial evaluation to surgery date was also significantly longer among top quartile programs (200 vs 122 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery programs that perform a higher proportion of Medicaid cases tend to care for patients with greater disease severity who experience delays in care and also require more resource utilization. Improving bariatric surgery utilization among patients with lower socioeconomic status may benefit from insurance standardization and program-centered incentives to improve access and equitable distribution of care.

Outcomes for concomitant common iliac artery aneurysms after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the morbidity of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with concomitant common iliac artery aneurysm (CCIAA). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent elective EVAR from June 2006 through June 2012 at a single institution. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative presentation, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were tabulated. Patients with CCIAA were categorized into three groups according to the distal extent of their iliac limb: iliac limb extension into the external iliac artery with internal iliac artery coil embolization (EE); flared iliac limb ≥20 mm in diameter to the iliac bifurcation (FL); and iliac limb ≤20 mm ending proximal to the CCIAA (no-FL). RESULTS: During this period, 627 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR and preoperative computed tomographic angiograms were available for 523 patients to evaluate the presence of CCIAA. Of these, 211 patients (40.2%) had a CCIAA in at least one common iliac artery, with a total of 307 aneurysmal arteries. Of these 307 aneurysmal arteries, 62 (20.2%) were treated with EE, 132 (43.0%) were treated with FL, and 113 (36.8%) had a sufficient landing zone in the proximal common iliac artery to use an iliac limb ≤20 mm in diameter (no-FL). The overall reintervention rate was 12.4% of patients, with a higher reintervention rate between patients with CCIAA compared with those without (15.2% vs 10.9%; P = .039). There were no significant differences in reintervention rates between the EE, FL, and no-FL techniques (4.5% vs 4.8% vs 6.2%; P = .802) over a mean 59.8 months follow-up. The FL and EE techniques had a lower risk of distal endoleak than the no-FL technique, but the difference was not statistically significant (3.2% vs 2.3% vs 5.3% compared with 4.23% in the entire cohort). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCIAA had a higher reintervention rate after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with non-CCIAA patients. Of the techniques studied (EE, FL, and no-FL), there was no significant difference in reintervention rates between the three. All three techniques remain viable options for the endovascular repair of CCIAA.