Paying Family Medical Caregivers for Children's Home Healthcare in Colorado: A Working Medicaid Model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics and healthcare use of children with medical complexity who receive paid certified nursing assistant (CNA) care by a family member (family CNA) and by a traditional nonfamily member (nonfamily CNA). STUDY DESIGN: This was retrospective cohort study of children who received CNA care through Colorado's Medicaid paid family caregiving program between 2017 and 2019 by a home healthcare agency. We compared patient characteristics between the family CNA and nonfamily CNA groups. A multivariable Poisson regression model was used to compare hospitalization rates (days in the hospital per year), adjusting for patient age patient sex, nursing care, and complex chronic condition. RESULTS: Of 861 patients, 79% (n = 680) received family CNA care and 21% (n = 181) received nonfamily CNA care. Patient demographics and hospitalization did not differ between the groups, although patients who had family CNAs were less likely to receive additional nursing-level care (42% vs 60%, P < .01). Family and nonfamily CNA caregivers had similar characteristics, except that family CNA caregivers had substantially better 3-year retention (82% vs 9%, P < .01) despite lower average hourly pay ($14.60 vs $17.60 per hour, P < .01). Hospitalizations were rare (<10% of patients). In the adjusted model, patients who received family CNA care experienced 1 more hospitalized day per year, compared with patients who received nonfamily CNA care (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Paid family caregivers provided CAN-level care to children with medical complexity with a greater employee retention compared with nonfamily CNA caregivers, with marginally different hospitalization rates using a family-centered approach. This model may help address workforce shortages while also providing income to family caregivers.

Hospitalizations at United States Children's Hospitals and Severity of Illness by Neighborhood Child Opportunity Index.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between neighborhood opportunity measured by the Child Opportunity Index 2.0 (COI) and patterns of hospital admissions and disease severity among children admitted to US pediatric hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of 773 743 encounters for children <18 years of age admitted to US children's hospitals participating in the Pediatric Health Information System database 7/2020-12/2021. RESULTS: The proportion of children from each COI quintile was inversely related to the degree of neighborhood opportunity. The difference between the proportion of patients from Very Low COI and Very High COI ranged from +32.0% (type 2 diabetes mellitus with complications) to -14.1% (mood disorders). The most common principal diagnoses were acute bronchiolitis, respiratory failure/insufficiency, chemotherapy, and asthma. Of the 45 diagnoses which occurred in ≥0.5% of the cohort, 22, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, asthma, and sleep apnea had higher odds of occurring in lower COI tiers in multivariable analysis. Ten diagnoses, including mood disorders, neutropenia, and suicide and intentional self-inflicted injury had lower odds of occurring in the lower COI tiers. The proportion of patients needing critical care and who died increased, as neighborhood opportunity decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric hospital admission diagnoses and severity of illness are disproportionately distributed across the range of neighborhood opportunity, and these differences persist after adjustment for factors including race/ethnicity and payor status, suggesting that these patterns in admissions reflect disparities in neighborhood resources and differential access to care.

Analyzing Trends in the Global Surge of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Submissions to The Journal of Pediatrics.

During February to December 2020, there were 498 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-focused brief report and original article submissions to The Journal of Pediatrics. The majority were from international authors (68.1%). Early in the pandemic, geographic origin of the corresponding author paralleled the path of COVID-19 infection both within the US and around the globe.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Authorship Gender in The Journal of Pediatrics: Disproportionate Productivity by International Male Researchers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on authorship gender in articles submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics. STUDY DESIGN: Using gender-labeling algorithms and human inspection, we inferred the gender of corresponding authors of original articles submitted in January-February and April-May of 2019 and 2020 noting those articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Pearson χ2 tests to determine differences in gender proportions during the selected periods in the US and internationally. RESULTS: We analyzed 1521 original articles. Submissions increased 10.9% from January-February 2019 to January-February 2020 and 61.6% from April-May 2019 to April-May 2020. Women accounted for 56.0% of original articles in April-May 2019 but only 49.8% of original articles in April-May 2020. Original articles focused on COVID-19 represented a small percentage of additional articles submitted in January-February 2020 (1/33 or 3.0%) and (53/199 or 26.6%) in April-May 2020 compared with the number of submissions in the same months in 2019. International male corresponding authors submitted a significantly larger proportion of original articles compared with international female corresponding authors in April-May 2020 compared to April-May 2019 (P = .043). There was no difference in corresponding author gender proportion in the US (US in April-May of 2020 vs April-May of 2019; P = .95). There was no significant difference in final dispositions based on corresponding author gender for original articles from 2019 and 2020 (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Original article submissions to The Journal increased in April-May 2020, with the greatest increase by international male corresponding authors. The majority of the submission growth was not related to COVID-19.

Attributable Delay of Discharge for Children with Long-Term Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reasons for discharge delays for children with long-term mechanical ventilation. STUDY DESIGN: Charts of children (0-18 years of age) with a new tracheostomy in the Pulmonary Habilitation Program at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago were retrospectively reviewed for demographic information, medical diagnoses, medical stability, discharge to home, reasons for discharge delay, and hours of staffed home nursing. All patients were discharged on mechanical ventilation. Discharge delay was defined as >10 days after medical stability. Hospital charges were analyzed and excess charges quantified beginning with the date of delay. Descriptive statistics and Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare nursing hours and demographics. RESULTS: Of 72 patients, 55% were male with mean age 1.8 years (SD 3.8) at tracheostomy placement. The most common long-term mechanical ventilation indication was chronic lung disease (n = 47, 65%); 54% had discharge delays, the majority were primarily due to lack of home nursing (62%), followed by delay of caregiver training (18%), caregiver health and social issues (8%), and delay in a transitional care facility bed (8%). Of the 39 delayed patients, 10% ($13 217 889) of hospital charges occurred during excess days with a median of $186 061 (IQR $117 661-$386 905) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-half of children discharged to the community from a large inpatient pediatric long-term mechanical ventilation program had a nonmedical delay of discharge home, most commonly because of home nurse staffing. This case series provides further evidence that limited availability of home nursing impedes efficient discharge and prolongs hospitalizations.

Association of Home Respiratory Equipment and Supply Use with Health Care Resource Utilization in Children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care use and spending in children using vs not using respiratory medical equipment and supplies (RMES). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study of 20 352 children age 1-18 years continuously enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 from 12 states in the Truven Medicaid MarketScan Database; 7060 children using RMES were propensity score matched with 13 292 without RMES. Home RMES use was identified with Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and International Classification of Diseases codes. RMES use was regressed on annual per-member-per-year Medicaid payments, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, including underlying respiratory and other complex chronic conditions. RESULTS: Of children requiring RMES, 47% used oxygen, 28% suction, 22% noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, 17% tracheostomy, 8% ventilator, 5% mechanical in-exsufflator, and 4% high-frequency chest wall oscillator. Most children (93%) using RMES had a chronic condition; 26% had ≥6. The median per-member-per-year payments in matched children with vs without RMES were $24 359 vs $13 949 (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, payment increased significantly (P < .001 for all) with mechanical in-exsufflator (+$2657), tracheostomy (+$6447), suction (+$7341), chest wall oscillator (+$8925), and ventilator (+$20 530). Those increased payments were greater than the increase associated with a coded respiratory chronic condition (+$2709). Hospital and home health care were responsible for the greatest differences in payment (+$3799 and +$3320, respectively) between children with and without RMES. CONCLUSION: The use of RMES is associated with high health care spending, especially with hospital and home health care. Population health initiatives in children may benefit from consideration of RMES in comprehensive risk assessment for health care spending.

The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the gender of corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors led to differential publication recommendations and outcomes for original research articles and invited editorials submitted to The Journal of Pediatrics in 2015 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: Names of corresponding authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial writers in The Journal of Pediatrics databases for 2015-2016 were analyzed to determine gender using computer algorithms and Internet searches. Reviewer recommendations and final editor dispositions were stratified by their gender and the gender of the corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of 3729 original manuscripts, 54.3% had female corresponding authors. Women were the associate editor (40.2% of submissions), guest editor (34.8%), or primary reviewer (37.4%), with no gender difference in editor or reviewer assignments for submissions by female vs male corresponding authors. There were no outcome differences by author gender for manuscripts overseen by female (P = .71) or male (P = .62) editors nor recommendation differences by female (P = .18) or male (P = .71) reviewers. Female editors had a lower acceptance rate overall than male editors (20.1% vs 25.6%; P < .001). Women were statistically less likely to accept and complete the invitation to peer review original articles (34.0%; 2295 of 6743) compared with men (40.0%; 3930 of 9823; P < .001). Women wrote 33 of 107 editorials (30.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reviewer recommendations or editor decisions for original research articles based on corresponding author gender. However, women had fewer opportunities to serve as peer reviewers and editorial writers than would be expected given their representation as academic pediatric faculty.

Gender Differences in the Authorship of Original Research in Pediatric Journals, 2001-2016.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the gender of authors of original research in 3 high-impact pediatric journals between 2001 and 2016, given the importance of publishing on academic promotion, and to compare authorship gender with the percentage of women on editorial boards and with academic faculty composition. STUDY DESIGN: We assessed the prevalence of female first and senior (last-listed) authorship of original research articles published in 3 pediatric-focused journals Pediatrics, JAMA Pediatrics (entitled Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine until 2013), and The Journal of Pediatrics. We also examined the gender breakdown of the main editors and the broader editorial boards of these journals. In addition, we examined whether junior female faculty co-authored with male or female senior faculty. RESULTS: Of 3895 original articles, 22 were excluded because the gender of either the first or senior author could not be determined from the name. An analysis of authorship by year showed increasing female representation across the selected journals in both first (39.8% in 2001, 57.7% in 2016) and senior (28.6% in 2001, 38.1% in 2016) authors, respectively. Editorial boards also showed increasing female representation (17.8% in 2001 to 39.8% in 2016). Junior female faculty were more likely to co-author with senior female women (female first and last author); the gap remained unchanged despite the increasing number of women entering pediatrics. CONCLUSIONS: Women are underrepresented as authors and editors, although the gap is closing. Junior women are less likely to co-author with senior men, which may be a disservice given current gender disparities in promotion and leadership.