COVID-19 vaccine uptake before and after a vaccine mandate at a major academic hospital: Trends by race/ethnicity and level of patient contact.

OBJECTIVES: To assess vaccine coverage rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among Health care Personnel (HCP) and demographic characteristics associated with vaccine uptake Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study conducted among 10,889 hospital employees followed from Dec 16, 2020 - October 31, 2021, at a large academic hospital in Philadelphia. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Time to COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine series completion rates before and after implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and level of patient contact/occupational group. RESULTS: The vaccination series completion rate was 86.0% prior to mandate announcement, and increased to 98.7% after mandate implementation. Rates before mandate announcement were highest among Asians (96.2%), Whites (94.0%), males (89.7%), employees ≥ 65 years of age (95.2%), and employees with direct patient care (physicians, 99.0%, and nurses, 93.3%). Hospital educational initiatives (including Town Halls and discussions with Black and Hispanic employees with the lowest vaccination rates) appeared to improve uptake. The largest increase in series completion after mandate announcement occurred among Blacks, those of other/multiracial backgrounds, and Hispanics (35.6%, 22.4%, and 10.8%, respectively) as well as those with some or no direct patient contact (24.5% and 18.3%, respectively). Medical or religious exemptions were approved for 64 (<0.6%) employees and 38 (<0.4%) left their positions (8 voluntary, 30 involuntary) specifically due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. No clinically meaningful differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity for those who were vaccinated under the mandate versus those who left their positions were noted. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that while mandates may be challenging to institutions and enforcement unpopular, they play an important role in reducing hesitancy and securing high vaccination rates among HCP, a group at high risk of COVID-19 given their employment and who can be a source of disease transmission to patients.

Economics of a health system's direct-to-consumer telemedicine for its employees.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the mean per-episode unit cost for a direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine service for medical center employees (OnDemand) with that of in-person care and to estimate whether the offered service increased the use of care. STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study of adult employees and dependents of a large academic health system between July 7, 2017, and December 31, 2019. METHODS: To estimate differences in per-episode unit costs within 7 days, we compared costs between OnDemand encounters and conventional in-person encounters (primary care, urgent care, and emergency department) for any similar condition using a generalized linear model. We used interrupted time series analyses limited to the top 10 clinical conditions managed by OnDemand to estimate the effect of OnDemand's availability on the trends for overall employee per-month encounters. RESULTS: A total of 10,826 encounters among 7793 beneficiaries were included (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [10.9] years; 81.6% were women). The mean (SE) 7-day per-episode cost among employees and beneficiaries was lower for OnDemand encounters at $379.76 ($19.83) relative to non-OnDemand encounters at $493.49 ($25.53), a mean per-episode savings of $113.73 (95% CI, $50.36-$177.10; P < .001). After the introduction of OnDemand, among employees with encounters for the top 10 clinical conditions managed by OnDemand, the trend for encounter rates per 100 employees per month increased marginally (0.03; 95% CI, 0.00-0.05; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that DTC telemedicine staffed by an academic health system and offered directly to employees reduced the per-episode unit costs and only marginally increased utilization, suggesting lower cost overall.

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Vaccine Receipt by Health Care Personnel at a Major Academic Hospital During the First Months of Vaccine Availability.

Importance: Several COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized in the US, yet preliminary evidence suggests high levels of vaccine hesitancy and wide racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in uptake. Objective: To assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care personnel (HCP) during the first 4 months of availability in a large academic hospital, compare acceptance with previously measured vaccine hesitancy, and describe racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in vaccine uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 12 610 HCP who were offered COVID-19 vaccination at a major academic hospital in Philadelphia between December 16, 2020, and April 16, 2021. Exposures: For each HCP, data were collected on occupational category, age, sex, race and ethnicity (Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American [Black], Hispanic, White, and multiracial), and social vulnerability index (SVI) at the zip code of residence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine uptake by HCP at the employee vaccination clinic. Results: The study population included 4173 men (34.8%) and 7814 women (65.2%) (623 without data). A total of 1480 were Asian or Pacific Islander (12.4%); 2563 (21.6%), Black; 452 (3.8%), Hispanic; 7086 (59.6%), White; and 192 (1.6%), multiracial; 717 had no data for race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 40.9 (12.4) years, and 9573 (76.0%) received at least 1 vaccine dose during the first 4 months of vaccine availability. Adjusted for age, sex, job position, and SVI, Black (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) and multiracial (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89) HCP were less likely to receive vaccine compared with White HCP. When stratified by job position, Black nurses (n = 189; 62.8%), Black HCP with some patient contact (n = 466; 49.9%), and Black HCP with no patient contact (n = 636; 56.3%) all had lower vaccine uptake compared with their White and Asian or Pacific Islander counterparts. Similarly, multiracial HCP with some (n = 26; 52.0%) or no (n = 48; 58.5%) patient contact had lower vaccine uptake. In contrast, Black physicians were just as likely to receive the vaccine as physicians of other racial and ethnic groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, more than two-thirds of HCP at a large academic hospital in Philadelphia received a COVID-19 vaccine within 4 months of vaccine availability. Although racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities were seen in vaccine uptake, no such disparities were found among physicians. Better understanding of factors driving these disparities may help improve uptake.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Reflections on a Health System's Telemedicine Marathon.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency necessitated changes in health care delivery that will have lasting implications. The University of Pennsylvania Health System is a large multihospital system with an academic medical center at its core. To continue to care for patients with and without COVID-19, the system had to rapidly deploy telemedicine. We describe the challenges faced with the existing telemedicine infrastructures, the central mechanisms created to facilitate the necessary conversions, and the workflow changes instituted to support both inpatient and outpatient activities for thousands of providers, many of whom had little or no experience with telemedicine. We also discuss innovations that occurred as a result of this transition and the future of telemedicine at our institution.

Cardiovascular Disease Risk Associated With Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to determine cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. All publications describing FH risk from PubMed ("cardiovascular disease risk + familial hypercholesterolaemia," 2004-2015), Internet and Medline search of FH registries, and associated references were screened for FH-related CVD risk in titles, abstracts, and study methods. CVD risk expressed as rates, odds, or ratios of mortality and morbidity were extracted. Each article was reviewed for bias by 2 reviewers within 17 items in 7 categories; a modified Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale was used for nonrandomized studies. FINDINGS: The complete literature search identified 712 potential publications: 549 from PubMed (Medline), 150 from registries, and 13 from references. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 from registries in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain; 5 from single hospitals or families in Japan, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom; and a population survey in Denmark. Across studies, attrition bias was low in 22 (80%) of 28 items. Risk of selection bias was high in 35 (63%) of 56 items. Selection bias risk was due to low representativeness and lack of a non-FH comparator group within the same study; detection bias risk was due to variable definitions of CVD outcomes/measurement; and performance bias risk was due to long-term, intensive treatment, the most common limitations for registries. Studies from single hospitals and families lacked generalizability. In contrast, the Danish study revealed a low bias in each of the 4 selection bias criteria and 2 attrition risk criteria. Fatal and nonfatal CVD events were collected in the study. Comparing patients with FH versus non-FH patients, the odds ratios for coronary artery disease were 10.3 (95% CI, 7.8-13.8) and 13.2 (95% CI, 10.0-17.4) in subjects treated and not treated with lipid-lowering therapy, respectively. These ratios fall within the ranges of ratios reported in other studies but are generally higher than the ratios from registries and clinics, in which intensive specialized management is available. IMPLICATIONS: There is a lack of available data describing CVD risk in patients with FH, and many of the existing studies have biases in their design that could affect their risk estimates. A Danish study had the highest quality based on a predefined quality check list, providing the most credible estimates of the increase in CVD risk in patients with FH. The CVD risk due to FH is high and represents unmet medical need for patients with FH. Further research is warranted to validate the magnitude of risk.

Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of comparative effectiveness to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are important considerations in the choices of antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the study methods used and outcomes reported in the published literature to address the question of comparative effectiveness of newer antipsychotic agents and the adequacy and availability of evidence to support HTA agencies. DATA SOURCE: A systematic search of the PubMed database from 1 January 2009 to 30 September 2013 was conducted to identify studies evaluating new atypical antipsychotics reporting on comparative effectiveness. STUDY SELECTION: The systematic review comprised of studies on schizophrenia patients where at least two drugs were being compared and at least one treatment group received one of the following second-generation antipsychotics: risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, and quetiapine. The included studies were also required to have an efficacy, safety or economic outcome, such as Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, weight gain, resource utilization, or costs. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers (BW and GK) independently applied the inclusion criteria. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus, referring to the original sources. Information on the methodology and outcomes was collected for each included study. This included study description, head-to-head drug comparison, patient population, study methodology, statistical methods, reported outcomes, study support, and journal type. RESULTS: A total of 198 studies were identified from electronic search methods. The largest category of studies was randomized controlled trials [RCTs] (N = 73; 36.9%), which were largely directed at the regulatory endpoint. Fewer studies were undertaken for HTA-purposes cohort studies (N = 53; 26.8%), meta-analyses (N = 32; 16.2%), economic studies (N = 14; 7.1%), and cross-sectional studies (N = 13; 6.6%). Direct head-to-head comparisons preferred by HTA were dominated by the comparison involving olanzapine and risperidone, representing 149 (75.3%) and 119 (60.1%) studies, respectively. RCTs, which are the primary study type for regulatory submissions, showed a lack of bias. Studies aimed at HTA were not as well performed. Cohort studies suffered from bias in the selection of comparison groups, lack of control for confounders, and differential dropout rates. As a group, cross-sectional studies scored poorly for bias, with a primary failure to identify a representative sample. Economic studies showed highly variable bias, with bias in the representation of effectiveness data, model assumptions without validation, and lack of sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: One limitation of this systematic review is that it only included studies from 2009 to 2013, potentially excluding some earlier comparator studies, particularly those involving first-generation antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: This review of comparative effectiveness studies of second-generation antipsychotic agents for schizophrenic patients revealed a wide range of study types, study methodologies, and outcomes. For traditional efficacy outcomes and select safety outcomes, there is strong evidence from many well-conducted studies; however, there are fewer studies of types preferred by HTA with limited head-to-head comparisons and a higher risk of bias in the execution of these studies.

Is the system really the solution? Operating costs in hospital systems.

Hospital system formation has recently accelerated. Executives emphasize scale economies that lower operating costs, a claim unsupported in academic research. Do systems achieve lower costs than freestanding facilities, and, if so, which system types? We test hypotheses about the relationship of cost with membership in systems, larger systems, and centralized and local hub-and-spoke systems. We also test whether these relationships have changed over time. Examining 4,000 U.S. hospitals during 1998 to 2010, we find no evidence that system members exhibit lower costs. However, members of smaller systems are lower cost than larger systems, and hospitals in centralized systems are lower cost than everyone else. There is no evidence that the system's spatial configuration is associated with cost, although national system hospitals exhibit higher costs. Finally, these results hold over time. We conclude that while systems in general may not be the solution to lower costs, some types of systems are.

Administration costs of intravenous chemotherapy in treating peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to examine the cost components of administering IV chemotherapy to peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the US to inform decision makers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PTCL (ICD-9 code 202.7X) between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2012 were identified from a US administrative claims database. Costs for patients receiving at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy were assessed using the allowed payment from claim line items, categorized into cost components (study drug costs, IV administration costs and other visit-related services). RESULTS: The mean costs to the payer for IV cancer therapy administration in a PTCL patient population averaged about $5735 per visit and $9356 per member per month (PMPM). Across all therapies, mean IV administration costs accounted for $127-$794 per visit and $594-$1808 PMPM, contributing an additional 2-32% to the total costs of the drug alone. Mean other visit-related services costs for treating PTCL accounted for $70-$2487 per visit and $444-$3094 PMPM, contributing an additional 2-74% to the total costs. Combined, these additional costs represent an additional mean cost of $220-$3150 per visit and $1193-$4609 PMPM to the base price of the drug alone. LIMITATIONS: This study used a convenience sample to identify PTCL patients and only included visits where at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy was administered. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of IV administration and other visit-related services add measurable costs to the total cost of IV therapy for treating PTCL. When considering the cost of the drug, these additional costs can represent a substantial proportion of the overall costs and must be considered when evaluating the costs of IV treatment options for PTCL.

Costs Associated with Intravenous Cancer Therapy Administration in Patients with Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma in a US Population.

Background. The most common chemotherapies in metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (mSTS) require intravenous (IV) administration. This often requires patients to make multiple outpatient visits per chemotherapy cycle, possibly impeding patients' daily activities and increasing caregiver burden and medical costs. This study investigated costs associated with IV cancer therapy administration in mSTS from the payer perspective of the health care system. Patients and Methods. From the Experian Healthcare database, 1,228 mSTS patients were selected. Data were analyzed on outpatient visits during 2005-2012 involving IV cancer therapy administration. Costs were estimated on a per patient per visit (PPPV) and per patient per month (PPPM) basis. Results. The mean (median) cost of IV therapy was $2,427 ($1,532) PPPV and $5,468 ($4,310) PPPM, of which approximately 60% was IV drug costs. IV administration costs averaged $399 PPPV and $900 PPPM, representing 16.5% of total visit costs. Anthracycline and alkylating-agents-based therapies had the highest PPPV and PPPM IV administration costs, respectively (mean $479 and $1,336, resp.). Patients with managed care insurance had the highest IV administration costs (mean $504 PPPV; $1,120 PPPM). Conclusions. IV administration costs constitute a considerable proportion of the total costs of receiving an IV cancer therapy to treat mSTS.

The impact of hospital pay-for-performance on hospital and Medicare costs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project on hospital revenues, costs, and margins and on Medicare costs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: All health care utilization for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI; ICD-9-CM code 410.x1) in fiscal years 2002-2005 from Medicare claims, containing 420,211 admissions with AMI. STUDY DESIGN: We test for changes in hospital costs and revenues and Medicare payments among 260 hospitals participating in the Medicare hospital pay-for-performance demonstration project and a group of 780 propensity-score-matched comparison hospitals. Effects were estimated using a difference-in-difference model with hospital fixed effects, testing for changes in costs among pay-for-performance hospitals above and beyond changes in comparison hospitals. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found no significant effect of pay-for-performance on hospital financials (revenues, costs, and margins) or Medicare payments (index hospitalization and 1 year after admission) for AMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pay-for-performance in the CMS hospital demonstration project had minimal impact on hospital financials and Medicare payments to providers. As P4P extends to all hospitals under the Affordable Care Act, these results provide some estimates of the impact of P4P and emphasize our need for a better understanding of the financial implications of P4P on providers and payers if we want to create sustainable and effective programs to improve health care value.

Impact of public reporting on unreported quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of quality improvement incentives on nontargeted care is unknown and some have expressed concern that such incentives may be harmful to nontargeted areas of care. Our objective is to examine the effect of publicly reporting quality information on unreported quality of care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The nursing home Minimum Data Set from 1999 to 2005 on all postacute care admissions. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 13,683 skilled nursing facilities and examined how unreported aspects of clinical care changed in response to changes in reported care after public reporting was initiated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on their website, Nursing Home Compare, in 2002. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that overall both unreported and reported care improved following the launch of public reporting. Improvements in unreported care were particularly large among facilities with high scores or that significantly improved on reported measures, whereas low-scoring facilities experienced no change or worsening of their unreported quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting in the setting of postacute care had mixed effects on areas without public reporting, improving in high-ranking facilities, but worsening in low-ranking facilities. While the benefits of public reporting may extend beyond areas that are being directly measured, these initiatives may also widen the gap between high- and low-quality facilities.

Analysis of costs associated with administration of intravenous single-drug therapies in metastatic breast cancer in a U.S. population.

BACKGROUND: An estimated $8.1 billion (in 2004 dollars) is spent annually on total health care costs for the treatment of breast cancer in the United States. Breast cancer has traditionally been treated with intravenous (IV) cancer therapies that entail not only the drug acquisition cost, but additional costs of personnel time, supplies, and equipment used in the preparation and administration of the IV drug. A systematic study of the costs of IV administration in the metastatic breast cancer (MBC) population has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost components, overall and by payer type and patient age group, for administering a single-agent IV breast cancer drug to women with MBC in the United States. METHODS: Women diagnosed with MBC (ICD-9-CM codes 174.XX and 196.XX-198.XX) reported any time between January 1, 2003, and May 31, 2006, and receiving single-agent IV breast cancer therapy (including intramuscular fulvestrant) during a visit were identified (using HCPCS and CPT codes) from an administrative claims database supporting 46 general/oncology clinics in the United States. Study drugs were either FDA-approved for breast cancer or recommended for use as preferred single agents per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer. Costs were estimated using the contracted allowed payment, which is the amount that the provider is eligible to receive from all parties, including payers and patients. Costs were measured using 2 approaches-average cost per IV-administration visit and average cost per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Over the 41-month study period (through May 31, 2006), 46,273 patients had a breast cancer diagnosis, of which 8,533 (18.4%) were metastatic; 828 (9.7%) of these patients received 1 of 11 single-agent IV breast cancer drugs over 7,406 visits. Mean (SD) total payments across all drugs and cost components were $2,477 ($1,842) per visit and $4,966 ($3,841) PPPM, of which IV administration costs were 10.2% of per-visit and 11.4% of PPPM costs, and other drugs and services provided during IV administration were 30.8% of per-visit and 32.2% of PPPM costs. In both the per-visit and PPPM analyses, approximately 80% of costs for other drugs and services (approximately 25% of total treatment costs) were attributed to (a) antihypercalcemic agents (e.g., zoledronic acid: 6%-8% of total treatment cost), (b) colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) (e.g., pegfilgrastim, epoetin: 6%-7%), or (c) other anticancer agents being used off-label or for other conditions (e.g., bevacizumab, irinotecan, carboplatin, vincristine: 11%-12%). The remaining 20% of costs for other drugs and services (about 6% of total costs) were attributable primarily to antiemetic agents (e.g., palonosetron, granisetron) and miscellaneous or unclassified products. Non-protein-bound paclitaxel was the most commonly used IV therapy at a mean cost of $2,804 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $353 (12.6%) and other services accounting for $1,237 (44.1%) of total costs per visit. The second most commonly used IV therapy was trastuzumab at a mean cost of $2,526 per visit, with IV administration accounting for $214 (8.5%) and other services accounting for $336 (13.3%) of total costs per visit. CONCLUSIONS: For patients being administered a single FDA-approved or NCCN-recommended IV drug for treatment of MBC, IV administration costs accounted for approximately 10%-11% of total cost, and the study drugs accounted for 56%-59%. Other drugs and services accounted for 31%-32%, most of which was attributable to antihypercalcemic agents, CSFs, anticancer drugs being used off-label for breast cancer or for other conditions, and antiemetic agents. Although costs of IV administration are 10%-11% of total IV chemotherapy costs for MBC and would clearly be avoided with the use of oral agents, the extent to which other costs would be avoided or incurred with use of oral agents is unknown and requires further research.

Variation in cardiac procedure use and racial disparity among Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Lower or less racially equitable cardiac procedure rates at Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) with larger minority populations may be sources of racial disparities. This study's objectives were to determine if VAMCs with higher proportions of black inpatients performed fewer cardiac procedures or had larger racial differences in procedure rates than predominantly white VAMCs. METHODS: We identified 87536 potential candidates for bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, 50517 for implanted cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD), 92292 for dual-chambered pacemaker (DCP), and 70269 for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitalized between 1998 and 2003. Multivariate regression models were fitted that controlled for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics as well as hospital factors such as academic affiliation and inpatient racial composition. Racial differences in procedure rates both across and within hospital-level classifications were examined. RESULTS: Across VA hospital types, there were few significant differences in adjusted procedure rates at VAMCs with larger compared with smaller black inpatient populations. Conversely, within-hospital estimates of black versus white procedure use indicated VAMCs with >30% black inpatients had greater racial differences compared to predominantly white VAMCs (adjusted black-white odds ratios of 0.45 vs 0.81 for aortic valve replacement [P = .07], 0.54 vs 0.85 for DCPs [P < .001], 0.54 vs 0.65 for ICDs [P = .30], and 0.69 vs 0.86 for PCI [P = .01].) CONCLUSIONS: Although VAMCs with larger black inpatient populations performed cardiac procedures at similar rates as predominantly white VAMCs, racial differences in procedures were greater within VAMCs with larger black populations. Improving equity at VAMCs with larger minority populations is critical to achieving systemwide health care equality.