SARS-CoV-2 Testing and Complications Across 6 Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Individuals Recently Experiencing Homelessness in Ontario, Canada.

This cohort study compares the rates of SARS-CoV-2 testing and complications across 6 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada, between individuals recently experiencing homelessness, low-income residents, and the general population.

COVID-19 Disparities Among Arab, Middle Eastern, and West Asian Populations in Toronto: Implications for Improving Health Equity Among Middle Eastern and North African Communities in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Equity-oriented efforts to mitigate and prevent COVID-related disparities are hindered due to methodological limitations of the categorization of racial and ethnic groups, including Arabs and Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) communities, which remain invisible in national data collection efforts. This study highlights the disparities in COVID-related outcomes in Toronto, Canada and supports ongoing calls to collect public health data among MENA communities in the United States. METHODS: Data on racial/ethnic identity and hospitalizations were collected by the Toronto Public Health (TPH) of the Ontario Ministry of Public Health Case between May 20, 2020, and September 30, 2021 from people with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19. RESULTS: The reported COVID-19 infection rate for Arab, Middle Eastern, West Asians (i.e., categories used to self-identify as MENA in Canada) relative to Whites in Toronto was 3.51. The age-standardized hospitalization rate ratio between Arab, Middle Eastern, West Asians and Whites was 4.59. DISCUSSION: Data from Toronto highlight that Arab, Middle Eastern, and West Asians have higher rates of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations than their White counterparts. Comparable studies are currently not possible in the United States due to lack of data that can disaggregate MENA individuals. This study underscores the critical need to collect data among MENA communities in the United States to advance our field's goal of promoting and advancing equity.

Effect on Treatment Adherence of Distributing Essential Medicines at No Charge: The CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Nonadherence to treatment with medicines is common globally, even for life-saving treatments. Cost is one important barrier to access, and only some jurisdictions provide medicines at no charge to patients. Objective: To determine whether providing essential medicines at no charge to outpatients who reported not being able to afford medicines improves adherence. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, unblinded, parallel, 2-group, superiority, outcomes assessor-blinded, individually randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada, enrolled 786 patients between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, who reported cost-related nonadherence. Follow-up occurred at 12 months. The primary analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to receive free medicines on a list of essential medicines in addition to otherwise usual care (n = 395) or usual medicine access and usual care (n = 391). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to treatment with all medicines that were appropriately prescribed for 1 year. Secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c level, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 1 year after randomization in participants taking corresponding medicines. Results: Among the 786 participants analyzed (439 women and 347 men; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [14.3] years), 764 completed the trial. Adherence to treatment with all medicines was higher in those randomized to receive free distribution (151 of 395 [38.2%]) compared with usual access (104 of 391 [26.6%]; difference, 11.6%; 95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%). Control of type 1 and 2 diabetes was not significantly improved by free distribution (hemoglobin A1c, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 0.00%), systolic blood pressure was reduced (-7.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.7 to -2.8 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were not affected (-2.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, -14.7 to 10.0 mg/dL). Conclusions and Relevance: The distribution of essential medicines at no charge for 1 year increased adherence to treatment with medicines and improved some, but not other, disease-specific surrogate health outcomes. These findings could help inform changes to medicine access policies such as publicly funding essential medicines. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.

The Association Between Hospital Concentration And Insurance Premiums In ACA Marketplaces.

Keeping the Affordable Care Act's health insurance Marketplaces financially accessible is critically important to their viability. While the relationship between the number of insurers and Marketplace premiums has received widespread attention, the role of hospital market concentration on premiums has been understudied. We examined the relationship between hospital market concentration and Marketplace insurance premiums in the period 2014-17, the extent to which the number of insurers modified this relationship, and whether community-level characteristics were associated with varying levels of concentration. We found that areas with the highest levels of hospital market concentration had annual premiums that were, on average, 5 percent higher than those in the least concentrated areas. Additionally, while an increased number of insurers was independently associated with lower premiums, that was not sufficient to offset the effects of increased hospital concentration on premium costs. Communities with lower socioeconomic status (as measured by median income) were more likely to have higher hospital market concentration. However, this was not consistent across all measures of socioeconomic status, such as measures of unemployment, use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and education. These findings help underscore the importance of exploring antitrust policy and other efforts that may reduce hospital concentration and help keep Marketplace premiums affordable.

Preoperative Laboratory Investigations: Rates and Variability Prior to Low-risk Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention has been focused on low-value healthcare services. Through Choosing Wisely campaigns, routine laboratory testing before low-risk surgery has been discouraged in the absence of clinical indications. The authors investigated rates, determinants, and institutional variation in laboratory testing before low-risk procedures. METHODS: Patients who underwent ophthalmologic surgeries or predefined low-risk surgeries in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2013, were identified from population-based administrative databases. Preoperative blood work was defined as a complete blood count, prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin, or basic metabolic panel within 60 days before an index procedure. Adjusted associations between patient and institutional factors and preoperative testing were assessed with hierarchical multivariable logistic regression. Institutional variation was characterized using the median odds ratio. RESULTS: The cohort included 906,902 patients who underwent 1,330,466 procedures (57.1% ophthalmologic and 42.9% low-risk surgery) at 119 institutions. Preoperative blood work preceded 400,058 (30.1%) procedures. The unadjusted institutional rate of preoperative blood work varied widely (0.0 to 98.1%). In regression modeling, significant predictors of preoperative testing included atrial fibrillation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 2.51 to 2.66), preoperative medical consultation (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.65 to 1.71), previous mitral valve replacement (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.58), and liver disease (AOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.55 to 1.84). The median odds ratio for interinstitutional variation was 2.43. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that testing is associated with a range of clinical covariates. However, an association was similarly identified with preoperative consultation, and significant variation between institutions exists across the jurisdiction.

The Effect of Pay for Performance in the Emergency Department on Patient Waiting Times and Quality of Care in Ontario, Canada: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2008, a pay-for-performance program was implemented in sequential waves in Ontario emergency departments (EDs), with the aim of reducing length of stay. We seek to evaluate its effects on ED length of stay and quality of care. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of ED visits in Ontario from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2011, using multivariable difference-in-differences analysis. Pay-for-performance hospitals and matched control sites were selected for each of 3 waves of the program. The primary outcome was 90th percentile ED length of stay; we also examined quality-of-care indicators. RESULTS: Pay-for-performance hospitals had a modest reduction in overall adjusted 90th percentile ED length of stay in wave 1 (-36 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -50 to -21 minutes), but not in wave 2 (-14 minutes; 95% CI -30 to 2 minutes) or wave 3 (-7 minutes; 95% CI -23 to 8 minutes). ED admitted patients had a pronounced reduction in adjusted 90th percentile length of stay in wave 1 (-225 minutes; 95% CI -263 to -188 minutes) and wave 2 (-133 minutes; 95% CI -175 to -91 minutes). Nonadmitted low-acuity patients had reductions in adjusted 90th percentile ED length of stay in wave 1 (-24 minutes; 95% CI -29 to -18 minutes) and wave 3 (-19 minutes; 95% CI -24 to -14 minutes). The program did not negatively affect ED quality-of-care measures, such as 30-day mortality or readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Pay-for-performance was associated with modest overall benefits for ED length of stay without adversely affecting quality of care.