Short-term Effects of Canceled Elective Procedures Due to COVID-19: Evidence From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delayed or canceled elective procedures due to COVID-19 resulted in higher rates of ED utilization and/or increased mortality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On March 15, 2020, the VA issued a nationwide order to temporarily pause elective cases due to COVID-19. The effects of this disruption on patient outcomes are not yet known. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 in 2020 (n = 3326) were matched to similar completed procedures in 2018 (n = 151,863) and 2019 (n = 146,582). Outcome measures included 30- and 90-day VA ED use and mortality in the period following the completed or canceled procedure. We used exact matching on surgical procedure category and nearest neighbor matching on patient characteristics, procedure year, and facility. RESULTS: Patients with elective surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 were no more likely to have an ED visit in the 30- [Difference: -4.3% pts; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.078, -0.007] and 90 days (-0.9% pts; 95% CI: -0.068, 0.05) following the expected case date. Patients with cancellations had no difference in 30- (Difference: 0.1% pts; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.01) and 90-day (Difference: -0.4% pts; 95% CI: -0.016, 0.009) mortality rates when compared to similar patients with similar procedures that were completed in previous years. CONCLUSIONS: The pause in elective surgical cases was not associated with short-term adverse outcomes in VA hospitals, suggesting appropriate surgical case triage and management. Further study will be essential to determine if the delayed cases were associated with longer-term effects.

Impact of gentrification on adult mental health.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the net effect of living in a gentrified neighborhood on probability of having serious psychological distress. DATA SOURCES: We pooled 5 years of secondary data from the California Health Interview Survey (2011-2015) and focused on southern California residents. STUDY DESIGN: We compared adults (n = 43 815) living in low-income and gentrified, low-income and not gentrified, middle- to high-income and upscaled, and middle- to high-income and not upscaled neighborhoods. We performed a probit regression to test whether living in a gentrified neighborhood increased residents' probabilities of having serious psychological distress in the past year and stratified analyses by neighborhood tenure, homeownership status, and low-income status. Instrumental variables estimation and propensity scores were applied to reduce bias arising from residential selection and simultaneity. An endogenous treatment effects model was also applied in sensitivity analyses. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Adults who completed the survey on their own and lived in urban neighborhoods with 500 or more residents were selected for analyses. Survey respondents who scored 13 and above on the Kessler 6 were categorized as having serious psychological distress in the past year. We used eight neighborhood change measures to classify respondents' neighborhoods. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Living in a gentrified and upscaled neighborhood was associated with increased likelihood of serious psychological distress relative to living in a low-income and not gentrified neighborhood. The average treatment effect was 0.0141 (standard error = 0.007), which indicates that the prevalence of serious psychological distress would have been 1.4 percentage points less if none of the respondents lived in gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification appears to have a negative impact on the mental health of renters, low-income residents, and long-term residents. This effect was not observed among homeowners, higher-income residents, and recent residents. CONCLUSIONS: Gentrification levies mental health costs on financially vulnerable community members and can worsen mental health inequities.

Behavioral Health Treatment Patterns Among Employer-Insured Adults in Same- and Different-Gender Marriages and Domestic Partnerships.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined specialty behavioral health treatment patterns among employer-insured adults in same- and different-gender domestic partnerships and marriages. METHODS: The study used behavioral health service claims (2008-2013) from Optum to estimate gender-stratified penetration rates of behavioral health service use by couple type and partnership status among partnered adults ages 18-64 (N=12,727,292 person-years) and levels of use among those with any use (conditional analyses). Least-squares, logistic, and zero-truncated negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for age, employer and plan characteristics, and provider supply and for sociodemographic factors in sensitivity analyses. Generalized estimating equations were used to address within-group correlation of adults clustered in employer groups. RESULTS: Both women and men in same-gender marriages or domestic partnerships had higher rates of behavioral health service use, particularly diagnostic evaluation, individual psychotherapy, and medication management, and those in treatment had, on average, more psychotherapy visits than those in different-gender marriages. Behavioral health treatment patterns were similar between women in same-gender domestic partnerships and same-gender marriages, but they diverged between men in same-gender domestic partnerships and same-gender marriages. Moderation analysis results indicated that adults with same-gender partners living in states with fewer legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons were less likely than adults with same-gender partners in LGBT-friendly states to receive behavioral health treatment. Sensitivity analyses did not affect findings. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral health treatment patterns varied by couple type, partnership status, and gender. Results highlight the importance of increasing service acceptability and delivering inclusive, culturally relevant behavioral health treatment for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

Who Gets Needed Mental Health Care? Use of Mental Health Services among Adults with Mental Health Need in California.

BACKGROUND: Timely and appropriate treatment could help reduce the burden of mental illness. PURPOSE: This study describes mental health services use among Californians with mental health need, highlights underserved populations, and discusses policy opportunities. METHODS: Four years of California Health Interview Survey data (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) were pooled and weighted to the 2013 population to estimate mental health need and unmet need (n=82,706). Adults with mental health need had "unmet need" if they did not use prescription medication and did not have at least four or more mental health visits in the past year. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the probability adults with mental health need did not receive past-year treatment (n=5,315). RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of Californians with mental health need received no or inadequate mental health treatment in 2013. Men, Latinos, Asians, young people, older adults, people with less education, uninsured adults, and individuals with limited English proficiency were significantly more likely to have unmet need. Cost of treatment and mental health stigma were common reasons for lack of care. CONCLUSION: Unmet mental health need is predominant in California. Policy recommendations include continued expansion of mental health coverage, early identification, and ensuring that treatment is culturally and linguistically appropriate.

Public health and the economy could be served by reallocating medical expenditures to social programs.

As much as 30% of US health care spending in the United States does not improve individual or population health. To a large extent this excess spending results from prices that are too high and from administrative waste. In the public sector, and particularly at the state level, where budget constraints are severe and reluctance to raise taxes high, this spending crowds out social, educational, and public-health investments. Over time, as spending on medical care increases, spending on improvements to the social determinants of health are starved. In California the fraction of General Fund expenditures spent on public health and social programs fell from 34.8% in fiscal year 1990 to 21.4% in fiscal year 2014, while health care increased from 14.1% to 21.3%. In spending more on healthcare and less on other efforts to improve health and health determinants, the state is missing important opportunities for health-promoting interventions with a strong financial return. Reallocating ineffective medical expenditures to proven and cost-effective public health and social programs would not be easy, but recognizing its potential for improving the public's health while saving taxpayers billions of dollars might provide political cover to those willing to engage in genuine reform. National estimates of the percent of medical spending that does not improve health suggest that approximately $5 billion of California's public budget for medical spending has no positive effect on health. Up to 10,500 premature deaths could be prevented annually by reallocating this portion of medical spending to public health. Alternatively, the same expenditure could help an additional 418,000 high school students to graduate.

California Veterans Receive Inadequate Treatment to Address their Mental Health Needs.

Data from the 2011 to 2013 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) were pooled to estimate prevalence of mental health need (serious psychological distress and impairment in one or more life domains), minimally adequate treatment (having four or more visits with a health professional in the past 12 months and use of prescription medication for mental health problems in the past 12 months), and suicide ideation among veterans living in California. Numbers and percentages were weighted to the CA population using a large sample size (N=6,952), and for comparison purposes, veterans and nonveterans were standardized to the age and gender distribution of veterans in the sample. Although differences in mental health need were similar between veterans and nonveterans after adjustment, over three-quarters of veterans did not receive minimally adequate treatment needed to address their mental health needs. Suicide ideation was significantly higher among veterans than nonveterans. Male veterans at all ages were more vulnerable to thinking about suicide compared to their nonveteran counterparts.

The Mental Health Status of California Veterans.

Data from the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) from 2011--2013 showed approximately 90,000 veterans had mental health needs and 200,000 reported serious thoughts of suicide during the 12 months prior to participating in CHIS. Although the proportion of veterans reporting mental health need or serious psychological distress was no higher than the general population, California veterans were more likely to report lifetime suicide ideation. This policy brief uses CHIS data to examine the mental health status, needs, and barriers to care among veterans in California. Veterans were more likely to receive mental health or substance use treatment than nonveterans, yet three of four veterans with mental health needs received either inadequate or no mental health care. Integrating mental and physical health services, increasing access to care, retaining veterans who seek mental health treatment, and reducing stigma are among the strategies that might improve the mental health of California's veterans.

Moderate Effects of Same-Sex Legislation on Dependent Employer-Based Insurance Coverage Among Sexual Minorities.

A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare the effects of same-sex domestic partnership, civil union, and marriage policies on same- and different-sex partners who could have benefitted from their partners' employer-based insurance (EBI) coverage. Same-sex partners had 78% lower odds (Marginal Effect = -21%) of having EBI compared with different-sex partners, adjusting for socioeconomic and health-related factors. Same-sex partners living in states that recognized same-sex marriage or domestic partnership had 89% greater odds of having EBI compared with those in states that did not recognize same-sex unions (ME = 5%). The impact of same-sex legislation on increasing take-up of dependent EBI coverage among lesbians, gay men, and bisexual individuals was modest, and domestic partnership legislation was equally as effective as same-sex marriage in increasing same-sex partner EBI coverage. Extending dependent EBI coverage to same-sex partners can mitigate gaps in coverage for a segment of the lesbians, gay men, and bisexual population but will not eliminate them.