Health equity integrated epilepsy care and research: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: With the unanimous approval of the Intersectoral Global Action Plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders by the World Health Organization in May 2022, there are strong imperatives to work towards equitable neurological care. AIMS: Using epilepsy as an entry point to other neurologic conditions, we discuss disparities faced by marginalized groups including racial/ethnic minorities, Americans living in rural communities, and Americans with low socioeconomic status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Institute on Minority Health Disparities Research Framework (NIMHD) was used to conduct a narrative review through a health equity lens to create an adapted framework for epilepsy and propose approaches to working towards equitable epilepsy and neurological care. RESULTS: In this narrative review, we identified priority populations (racial and ethnic minority, rural-residing, and low socioeconomic status persons with epilepsy) and outcomes (likelihood to see a neurologist, be prescribed antiseizure medications, undergo epilepsy surgery, and be hospitalized) to explore disparities in epilepsy and guide our focused literature search using PubMed. In an adapted NIMHD framework, we examined individual, interpersonal, community, and societal level contributors to health disparities across five domains: (1) behavioral, (2) physical/built environment, (3) sociocultural, (4) environment, and (5) healthcare system. We take a health equity approach to propose initiatives that target modifiable factors that impact disparities and advocate for sustainable change for priority populations. DISCUSSION: To improve equity, healthcare providers and relevant societal stakeholders can advocate for improved care coordination, referrals for epilepsy surgery, access to care, health informatics interventions, and education (i.e., to providers, patients, and communities). More broadly, stakeholders can advocate for reforms in medical education, and in the American health insurance landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Equitable healthcare should be a priority in neurological care.

Disparities in Primary Care Wait Times in Medicaid versus Commercial Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to primary care is important, particularly among patients with acute conditions and patients seeking gateways to specialty care. Due to concerns that expanded Medicaid eligibility would compromise access to primary care among new Medicaid beneficiaries, an experimental study was conducted to test the ability to obtain timely appointments. Although access to primary care appointments for simulated Medicaid patients significantly increased, wait times also increased. This study explores the determinants of wait times and whether they pose greater barriers to Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: We conducted linear regressions to determine the association between the number of days to scheduled appointments and the simulated patient's clinical scenario, practice-level characteristics, and county-level measures of primary care supply. RESULTS: Simulated Medicaid patients faced 1.3 days longer wait times than commercially insured ones. Participation in accountable care organizations and integrated health systems was associated with longer wait times but did not seem to reduce wait time disparities across insurance types. Notably, the presence of Federally Qualified Health Centers in a given county was associated with lower wait times for simulated Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the complexity of access disparities for Medicaid patients and provide insight for future waves of health care reform.

Registry-based trials: a potential model for cost savings?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Registry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials. METHODS: We built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design. RESULTS: Registry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field. CONCLUSIONS: Registries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.