RESUMO
Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether website transparency of service costs, accepted insurance plans, and financing options differs between reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics located in states that do and do not mandate insurance coverage of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: Six hundred forty-six clinics were identified using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology online locator. Clinics were excluded for missing website links, duplicate entries, broken websites, or permanent closure. Mandated coverage by state was gathered on resolve.org Chi-squared testing and logistic regression were performed. Results: Of the 311 clinic websites analyzed, 28.6% were in states that mandate ART coverage and 71.4% were not. Clinics in states that have mandated coverage were more likely to list specific prices on their websites. These clinics were 2.13 times more likely to list specific costs (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.81, p = 0.01). There was also a significant difference between the percent of clinics in mandated coverage states and nonmandated states that listed accepted insurance plans. These clinics were 2.44 times more likely to report accepted insurance plans (OR; 95% CI: [1.47-4.05], p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the mention of financial assistance between the groups. Clinics in states with mandated coverage were more likely to mention discount programs, but there was no significant difference for other types of financial assistance. Conclusion: Clinics located in states that mandate insurance coverage of ART are more likely to list specific costs, accepted insurance plans, and the availability of discount programs on their website. Patients living in states without mandated coverage are more likely to need to finance their own treatment, yet these patients are less likely to have nearby clinics that provide financial transparency on their websites.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: For adult trauma patients, the likelihood of receiving treatment at a hospital properly equipped for trauma care can vary by race and sex. This study examines whether a pediatric patient's race/ethnicity and sex are associated with treatment at a high acuity trauma hospital (HATH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the 2017 National Inpatient Sample, we identified pediatric trauma patients ( ≤16 y) using International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Because trauma centers are not defined in National Inpatient Sample, we defined HATHs as hospitals which transferred 0% of pediatric neurotrauma. We used logistic regression to examine associations between race/ethnicity, sex, age, and treatment at a HATH, adjusted for factors including Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and region. RESULTS: Of 18,085 injured children (median Injury Severity Score 3 [IQR 1-8]), 67% were admitted to a HATH. Compared to White patients, Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] 0.85 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.93]) and other race/ethnicity patients (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.78-0.93]) had a significantly lower odds of treatment at a HATH. Children aged 2-11 (OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.27-1.46]) were more likely to be treated at a HATH compared to adolescents (age 12-16). After adjustment for other factors, sex was not associated with treatment at a HATH. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated racial and ethnic disparities in access to HATHs for pediatric trauma patients. Hispanic and other race/ethnicity pediatric trauma patients have lower odds of treatment at HATHs. Further research is needed to study the root causes of these disparities to ensure that all children with injuries receive equitable and high-quality care.
