Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Charges for Initial Visits for Uninsured Patients at Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers in the US.

Importance: In recent years, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) have opened across the US. Uninsured patients may increasingly turn to these orthopedic-specific urgent care centers as a lower-cost alternative to emergency department or general urgent care center visits. Objective: To assess out-of-pocket costs and factors associated with these costs at MUCCs for uninsured and underinsured patients in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a national secret shopper survey was conducted in June 2019. Clinics identified as MUCCs in 50 states were contacted by telephone by investigators using a standardized script and posing as uninsured patients seeking information on the out-of-pocket charge for a new patient visit. Exposures: State Medicaid expansion status, clinic Medicaid acceptance status, state Medicaid reimbursement rate, median income per zip code, and clinic region. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was each clinic's out-of-pocket charge for a level 3 visit, defined as a new patient office visit requiring medical decision-making of low complexity. Linear regression was used to examine correlations of price with clinic policy against accepting Medicaid, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit. Results: Of 565 MUCCs identified, 558 MUCCs were able to be contacted (98.8%); 536 of the 558 MUCCs (96.1%) disclosed a new patient visit out-of-pocket charge. Of those, 313 (58.4%) accepted Medicaid insurance and 326 (60.8%) were located in states with expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The mean (SD) price of a visit to an MUCC was $250 ($110). Clinic policy against accepting Medicaid (ß, 22.91; 95% CI, 12.57-33.25; P < .001), higher median income per zip code (ß, 0.00056; 95% CI, 0.00020-0.00092; P = .003), and increased Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit (ß, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.158-1.316; P = .01) were positively correlated with visit price. The overall regression was statistically significance (R2 = 0.084; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, MUCCs charged a mean price of $250 for a new patient visit. Medicaid acceptance policy, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit were associated with differences in out-of-pocket charges. These findings suggest that accessibility to orthopedic urgent care at MUCCs may be limited for underinsured and uninsured patients.

Evaluating musculoskeletal urgent care center triage and transfer of emergency conditions for emergency surgical assessment and intervention.

Musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are an alternative to emergency departments (EDs) for patients to seek care for low acuity orthopedic injuries such as ankle sprains or joint pain, but are not equipped to manage orthopedic emergencies that require a higher level of care provided in the ED. This study aims to evaluate telephone and online triage practices as well as ED transfer procedures for MUCCs for patients presenting with an orthopedic condition requiring urgent surgical intervention. We called 595 MUCCs using a standardized script presenting as a critical patient with symptoms of lower extremity compartment syndrome. We compared direct ED referral frequency and triage frequency for MUCCs for patients insured by either Medicaid or by private insurance. We found that patients presenting with an apparent compartment syndrome were directly referred to the ED by < 1 in 5 MUCCs. Additionally, < 5% of patients were asked additional triage questions that would increase clinician suspicion for compartment syndrome and allow MUCCs to appropriately direct patients to the ED. MUCCs provide limited telephone and online triage for patients, which may result in delays of care for life or limb threatening injuries that require ED resources such as sedation, reductions, and emergency surgery. However, when MUCCs did conduct triage, it significantly increased the likelihood that patients were appropriately referred to the ED. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

Access to Urologic Care at Urgent Care Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Medicaid insurance access disparities for urologic care at urgent care centers (UCCs) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a "secret shopper" methodology. We sampled 240 UCCs across 8 states. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as a patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of obstructing nephrolithiasis. The primary study endpoint was whether a patient's insurance (Medicaid vs commercial) was accepted. We assessed factors associated with Medicaid acceptance using logistic regression models adjusted for state-level and facility-level characteristics. Additionally, we calculated triage rates, emergency department referral rates, and the ability of a UCC to refer the patient to a specialist. RESULTS: Of 240 UCCs contacted, 239 (99.6%) accepted commercial insurance and 159 (66.2%) accepted Medicaid. UCCs in Medicaid expansion states more frequently accepted patients with Medicaid insurance (74.2% vs 58.3%, respectively, P < .01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.04-3.26, P = .04) and affiliation with an institution (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.59-5.57, P < .01) were independently associated with greater odds of accepting Medicaid. Medicaid-insured patients were significantly less likely to be triaged or referred to the emergency department compared to commercial patients. CONCLUSION: We identified significant disparities in access to UCCs for Medicaid patients presenting with a urologic condition. Given the expanding national role of UCCs, these findings highlight potential sources of insurance disparity in the context of a urologic emergency.

Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers Restrict Access for Patients with Medicaid Insurance Based on Policy and Location.

BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Underweight Patients Are the Greatest Risk Body Mass Index Group for 30-Day Perioperative Adverse Events After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Existing literature investigating the correlation of body mass index (BMI) with surgical complications has focused on those with elevated BMI. These investigations have reported mixed conclusions, possible because of insufficient power, poor controlling of confounding variables, and inconsistent definitions of BMI categories (eg, underweight, overweight, and varying classifications of obese). Few studies have considered complications of patients with low BMI. The aim of the current study was to analyze the spectrum of categories for BMI with 30-day perioperative adverse events after primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to better assess where along the BMI spectrum patients are at risk for complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective TSA were abstracted from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) databases from 2005 to 2016. Patients were then aggregated into BMI categories, and 30-day adverse events were normalized to average risk of normal-weight subjects (BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2). Risk-adjusted multivariate regressions were performed, controlling for demographic variables and overall health. RESULTS: In total, 15,717 patients met the inclusion criteria. Underweight TSA patients (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2) had the greatest odds for multiple perioperative adverse events compared with any other BMI category. By multivariate analysis, underweight patients were more likely to experience any adverse event (odds ratio [OR] = 2.22, P = 0.034), serious adverse events (OR = 3.18, P = 0.004), or have postoperative infections (OR = 2.77, P = 0.012) within 30 days when compared with normal-weight patients. No significant difference was observed in these complications for elevated BMI categories when compared with normal-weight patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only underweight TSA patients were found to have higher rates of 30-day perioperative adverse events than normal BMI patients, unlike any overweight/obese category including the super morbidly obese. Underweight TSA patients were thus identified as an at-risk subpopulation of TSA patients who had not previously been described. Physicians and healthcare systems should give additional consideration to this fragile cohort because they often already do for those at the other end of the BMI spectrum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Urgent Care Centers Delay Emergent Surgical Care Based on Patient Insurance Status in The United States.

OBJECTIVE: Patients may call urgent care centers (UCCs) with urgent surgical conditions but may not be properly referred to a higher level of care. This study aims to characterize how UCCs manage Medicaid and privately insured patients who present with an emergent condition. METHODS: Using a standardized script, we called 1245 randomly selected UCCs in 50 states on 2 occasions. Investigators posed as either a Medicaid or a privately-insured patient with symptoms of an incarcerated inguinal hernia. Rates of direct emergency department (ED) referral were compared between insurance types. RESULTS: A total of 1223 (98.2%) UCCs accepted private insurance and 981 (78.8%) accepted Medicaid. At the 971 (78.0%) UCCs that accepted both insurance types, direct-to-ED referral rates for private and Medicaid patients were 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely than private patients to be referred to the ED [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.60]. Private patients who were triaged by a clinician compared to nonclinician staff were over 6 times more likely to be referred to the ED (OR 6.46, 95% CI 4.63-9.01). Medicaid patients were nearly 9 times more likely to have an ED referral when triaged by a clinician (OR 8.72, 95% CI 6.19-12.29). CONCLUSIONS: Only one-third of UCCs across the United States referred an apparent emergent surgical case to the ED, potentially delaying care. Medicaid patients were more likely to be referred directly to the ED versus privately insured patients. All patients triaged by clinicians were significantly more likely to be referred to the ED; however, the disparity between private and Medicaid patients remained.

Redefining the Role of Surgical Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) continues to evolve with ongoing advancements in systemic therapy, raising further questions about the optimal role of surgery in the management of mRCC. Herein, we provide a context and review of the recent evidence concerning the role of surgical therapy for patients with mRCC including cytoreductive nephrectomy and distant metastatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: One randomized trial has been published in the targeted therapy era suggesting that initial systemic therapy is non-inferior to cytoreductive nephrectomy among patients with intermediate and poor-risk mRCC. Delaying cytoreductive nephrectomy until after systemic therapy may be a viable treatment approach, although a high level of evidence is lacking. Additional questions remain regarding the sequence of surgery with systemic therapy, utility of distant metastatectomy, as well as the application of these findings to the current generation of immunotherapy. Recent evidence challenges the need of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy for unselected patients with mRCC. However, surgical therapy continues to play an important role in the management of the disease.

Medicaid Patients Have Greater Difficulty Scheduling Health Care Appointments Compared With Private Insurance Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

Medicaid patients are known to have reduced access to care compared with privately insured patients; however, quantifying this disparity with large controlled studies remains a challenge. This meta-analysis evaluates the disparity in health services accessibility of appointments between Medicaid and privately insured patients through audit studies of health care appointments and schedules. Audit studies evaluating different types of outpatient physician practices were selected. Studies were categorized based on the characteristics of the simulated patient scenario. The relative risk of appointment availability was calculated for all different types of audit scenario characteristics. As a secondary analysis, appointment availability was compared pre- versus post-Medicaid expansion. Overall, 34 audit studies were identified, which demonstrated that Medicaid insurance is associated with a 1.6-fold lower likelihood in successfully scheduling a primary care appointment and a 3.3-fold lower likelihood in successfully scheduling a specialty appointment when compared with private insurance. In this first meta-analysis comparing appointment availability between Medicaid and privately insured patients, we demonstrate Medicaid patients have greater difficulty obtaining appointments compared with privately insured patients across a variety of medical scenarios.

The Effect of Insurance Type on Patient Access to Knee Arthroplasty and Revision under the Affordable Care Act.

This study evaluated access to knee arthroplasty and revision in 8 geographically representative states. Patients with Medicaid were significantly less likely to receive an appointment compared to patients with Medicare or BlueCross. However, patients with Medicaid had increased success at making an appointment in states with expanded Medicaid eligibility (37.7% vs 22.8%, P=0.011 for replacement, 42.6% vs 26.9%, P=0.091 for revision), although they experienced longer waiting periods (31.5 days vs 21.1 days, P=0.054 for replacement, 45.5 days vs 22.5 days, P=0.06 for revision). Higher Medicaid reimbursement also had a direct correlation with appointment success rate for Medicaid patients (OR=1.232, P=0.001 for replacement, OR=1.314, P=0.014 for revision).