Protection against Omicron from Vaccination and Previous Infection in a Prison System.

BACKGROUND: Information regarding the protection conferred by vaccination and previous infection against infection with the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is limited. METHODS: We evaluated the protection conferred by mRNA vaccines and previous infection against infection with the omicron variant in two high-risk populations: residents and staff in the California state prison system. We used a retrospective cohort design to analyze the risk of infection during the omicron wave using data collected from December 24, 2021, through April 14, 2022. Weighted Cox models were used to compare the effectiveness (measured as 1 minus the hazard ratio) of vaccination and previous infection across combinations of vaccination history (stratified according to the number of mRNA doses received) and infection history (none or infection before or during the period of B.1.617.2 [delta]-variant predominance). A secondary analysis used a rolling matched-cohort design to evaluate the effectiveness of three vaccine doses as compared with two doses. RESULTS: Among 59,794 residents and 16,572 staff, the estimated effectiveness of previous infection against omicron infection among unvaccinated persons who had been infected before or during the period of delta predominance ranged from 16.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 23.7) to 48.9% (95% CI, 41.6 to 55.3). Depending on previous infection status, the estimated effectiveness of vaccination (relative to being unvaccinated and without previous documented infection) ranged from 18.6% (95% CI, 7.7 to 28.1) to 83.2% (95% CI, 77.7 to 87.4) with two vaccine doses and from 40.9% (95% CI, 31.9 to 48.7) to 87.9% (95% CI, 76.0 to 93.9) with three vaccine doses. Incremental effectiveness estimates of a third (booster) dose (relative to two doses) ranged from 25.0% (95% CI, 16.6 to 32.5) to 57.9% (95% CI, 48.4 to 65.7) among persons who either had not had previous documented infection or had been infected before the period of delta predominance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings in two high-risk populations suggest that mRNA vaccination and previous infection were effective against omicron infection, with lower estimates among those infected before the period of delta predominance. Three vaccine doses offered significantly more protection than two doses, including among previously infected persons.

Inappropriate Prescribing to Older Patients by Nurse Practitioners and Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Many U.S. states have legislated to allow nurse practitioners (NPs) to independently prescribe drugs. Critics contend that these moves will adversely affect quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of inappropriate prescribing among NPs and primary care physicians. DESIGN: Rates of inappropriate prescribing were calculated and compared for 23 669 NPs and 50 060 primary care physicians who wrote prescriptions for 100 or more patients per year, with adjustment for practice experience, patient volume and risk, clinical setting, year, and state. SETTING: 29 states that had granted NPs prescriptive authority by 2019. PATIENTS: Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in 2013 to 2019. MEASUREMENTS: Inappropriate prescriptions, defined as drugs that typically should not be prescribed for adults aged 65 years or older, according to the American Geriatrics Society's Beers Criteria. RESULTS: Mean rates of inappropriate prescribing by NPs and primary care physicians were virtually identical (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01]; crude rates, 1.63 vs. 1.69 per 100 prescriptions; adjusted rates, 1.66 vs. 1.68). However, NPs were overrepresented among clinicians with the highest and lowest rates of inappropriate prescribing. For both types of practitioners, discrepancies in inappropriate prescribing rates across states tended to be larger than discrepancies between these practitioners within states. LIMITATION: The Beers Criteria addresses the appropriateness of a selected subset of drugs and may not be valid in some clinical settings. CONCLUSION: Nurse practitioners were no more likely than physicians to prescribe inappropriately to older patients. Broad efforts to improve the performance of all clinicians who prescribe may be more effective than limiting independent prescriptive authority to physicians. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and National Science Foundation.

Handgun Ownership and Suicide in California.

BACKGROUND: Research has consistently identified firearm availability as a risk factor for suicide. However, existing studies are relatively small in scale, estimates vary widely, and no study appears to have tracked risks from commencement of firearm ownership. METHODS: We identified handgun acquisitions and deaths in a cohort of 26.3 million male and female residents of California, 21 years old or older, who had not previously acquired handguns. Cohort members were followed for up to 12 years 2 months (from October 18, 2004, to December 31, 2016). We used survival analysis to estimate the relationship between handgun ownership and both all-cause mortality and suicide (by firearm and by other methods) among men and women. The analysis allowed the baseline hazard to vary according to neighborhood and was adjusted for age, race and ethnic group, and ownership of long guns (i.e., rifles or shotguns). RESULTS: A total of 676,425 cohort members acquired one or more handguns, and 1,457,981 died; 17,894 died by suicide, of which 6691 were suicides by firearm. Rates of suicide by any method were higher among handgun owners, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.34 for all male owners as compared with male nonowners (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13 to 3.56) and 7.16 for female owners as compared with female nonowners (95% CI, 6.22 to 8.24). These rates were driven by much higher rates of suicide by firearm among both male and female handgun owners, with a hazard ratio of 7.82 for men (95% CI, 7.26 to 8.43) and 35.15 for women (95% CI, 29.56 to 41.79). Handgun owners did not have higher rates of suicide by other methods or higher all-cause mortality. The risk of suicide by firearm among handgun owners peaked immediately after the first acquisition, but 52% of all suicides by firearm among handgun owners occurred more than 1 year after acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: Handgun ownership is associated with a greatly elevated and enduring risk of suicide by firearm. (Funded by the Fund for a Safer Future and others.).

Handgun Divestment and Risk of Suicide.

BACKGROUND: Firearm ownership is strongly related to suicide risk, yet little is known about how much risk declines when ownership ends ("divestment"). METHODS: Using data from 523,182 handgun owners, we estimated the effect of divesting and remaining divested versus never divesting on the risk of suicide and firearm-specific suicide. We used pooled logistic regression with inverse probability weighting, adjusting for demographic and area-level measures. RESULTS: The 5-year risk of suicide death was 25.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.1, 37.2) per 10,000 persons with divestment and 15.2 (95% CI = 13.2, 17.3) per 10,000 persons with no divestment, corresponding to a risk difference of 10.4 (95% CI = 0.7, 21.1) per 10,000 persons. The 5-year risk of firearm-specific suicide death was 6.3 (95% CI = 1.4, 11.9) per 10,000 persons with divestment and 12.9 (95% CI = 11.0, 14.6) per 10,000 persons with no divestment, corresponding to a risk difference of -6.6 (95% CI = -11.4, -0.1) per 10,000 persons. Comparing divestment to no divestment, risks were elevated for deaths due to other causes proposed as negative control outcomes; we incorporated these estimates into a series of bias derivations to better understand the magnitude of unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these estimates suggest that divestment reduces firearm suicide risk by 50% or more and likely reduces overall suicide risk as well, although future data collection is needed to fully understand the extent of biases such as unmeasured confounding.

Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California, 2004 to 2016 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although personal protection is a major motivation for purchasing firearms, existing studies suggest that people living in homes with firearms have higher risks for dying by homicide. Distribution of those risks among household members is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between living with a lawful handgun owner and risk for homicide victimization. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study followed 17.6 million adult residents of California for up to 12 years 2 months (18 October 2004 through 31 December 2016). Cohort members did not own handguns, but some started residing with lawful handgun owners during follow-up. SETTING: California. PARTICIPANTS: 17 569 096 voter registrants aged 21 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Homicide (overall, by firearm, and by other methods) and homicide occurring in the victim's home. RESULTS: Of 595 448 cohort members who commenced residing with handgun owners, two thirds were women. A total of 737 012 cohort members died; 2293 died by homicide. Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female. LIMITATIONS: Some cohort members classified as unexposed may have lived in homes with handguns. Residents of homes with and without handguns may have differed on unobserved traits associated with homicide risk. CONCLUSION: Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, the Fund for a Safer Future, the Joyce Foundation, Stanford Law School, and the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines Among Incarcerated People in California State Prisons: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prisons and jails are high-risk settings for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from 22 December 2020 through 1 March 2021. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided daily data for all prison residents including demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics, as well as COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates, adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons. RESULTS: Among 60 707 cohort members, 49% received at least 1 BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 dose during the study period. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-82%) from day 14 after first dose until receipt of second dose and 97% (95% CI, 88%-99%) from day 14 after second dose. Effectiveness was similar among the subset of residents who were medically vulnerable: 74% (95% CI, 62%-82%) and 92% (95% CI, 74%-98%) from 14 days after first and second doses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with results from randomized trials and observational studies in other populations, mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people. Prioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination, redoubling efforts to boost vaccination, and continuing other ongoing mitigation practices are essential in preventing COVID-19 in this disproportionately affected population.

Accuracy of Valuations of Surgical Procedures in the Medicare Fee Schedule.

BACKGROUND: The Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) of the American Medical Association plays a central role in determining physician reimbursement. The RUC's role and performance have been criticized but subjected to little empirical evaluation. METHODS: We analyzed the accuracy of valuations of 293 common surgical procedures from 2005 through 2015. We compared the RUC's estimates of procedure time with "benchmark" times for the same procedures derived from the clinical registry maintained by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). We characterized inaccuracies, quantified their effect on physician revenue, and examined whether re-review corrected them. RESULTS: At the time of 108 RUC reviews, the mean absolute discrepancy between RUC time estimates and benchmark times was 18.5 minutes, or 19.8% of the RUC time. However, RUC time estimates were neither systematically shorter nor longer than benchmark times overall (ß, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.01; P = 0.10). Our analyses suggest that whereas orthopedic surgeons and urologists received higher payments than they would have if benchmark times had been used ($160 million and $40 million more, respectively, in Medicare reimbursement in 2011 through 2015), cardiothoracic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and vascular surgeons received lower payments ($130 million, $60 million, and $30 million less, respectively). The accuracy of RUC time estimates improved in 47% of RUC revaluations, worsened in 27%, and was unchanged in 25%. (Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of frequently conducted operations, we found substantial absolute discrepancies between intraoperative times as estimated by the RUC and the times recorded for the same procedures in a surgical registry, but the RUC did not systematically overestimate or underestimate times. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims.

BACKGROUND: Physicians with poor malpractice liability records may pose a risk to patient safety. There are long-standing concerns that such physicians tend to relocate for a fresh start, but little is known about whether, how, and where they continue to practice. METHODS: We linked an extract of the National Practitioner Data Bank to the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty data set to create a national cohort of physicians 35 to 65 years of age who practiced during the period from 2008 through 2015. We analyzed associations between the number of paid malpractice claims that physicians accrued and exits from medical practice, changes in clinical volume, geographic relocation, and change in practice-group size. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 480,894 physicians who had 68,956 paid claims from 2003 through 2015. A total of 89.0% of the physicians had no claims, 8.8% had 1 claim, and the remaining 2.3% had 2 or more claims and accounted for 38.9% of all claims. The number of claims was positively associated with the odds of leaving the practice of medicine (odds ratio for 1 claim vs. no claims, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.11; odds ratio for ≥5 claims, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.74). The number of claims was not associated with geographic relocation but was positively associated with shifts into smaller practice settings. For example, physicians with 5 or more claims had more than twice the odds of moving into solo practice than physicians with no claims (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.79 to 3.20). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians with multiple malpractice claims were no more likely to relocate geographically than those with no claims, but they were more likely to stop practicing medicine or switch to smaller practice settings. (Funded by SUMIT Insurance and the Australian Research Council.).

The Household Secondary Attack Rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Although much of the public health effort to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has focused on disease control strategies in public settings, transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within households remains an important problem. The nature and determinants of household transmission are poorly understood. METHODS: To address this gap, we gathered and analyzed data from 22 published and prepublished studies from 10 countries (20 291 household contacts) that were available through 2 September 2020. Our goal was to combine estimates of the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate (SAR) and to explore variation in estimates of the household SAR. RESULTS: The overall pooled random-effects estimate of the household SAR was 17.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.7-21.2%). In study-level, random-effects meta-regressions stratified by testing frequency (1 test, 2 tests, >2 tests), SAR estimates were 9.2% (95% CI, 6.7-12.3%), 17.5% (95% CI, 13.9-21.8%), and 21.3% (95% CI, 13.8-31.3%), respectively. Household SARs tended to be higher among older adult contacts and among contacts of symptomatic cases. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that SARs reported using a single follow-up test may be underestimated, and that testing household contacts of COVID-19 cases on multiple occasions may increase the yield for identifying secondary cases.

COVID-19 in the California State Prison System: an Observational Study of Decarceration, Ongoing Risks, and Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Correctional institutions nationwide are seeking to mitigate COVID-19-related risks. OBJECTIVE: To quantify changes to California's prison population since the pandemic began and identify risk factors for COVID-19 infection. DESIGN: For California state prisons (March 1-October 10, 2020), we described residents' demographic characteristics, health status, COVID-19 risk scores, room occupancy, and labor participation. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the association between rates of COVID-19 infection and room occupancy and out-of-room labor, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Residents of California state prisons. MAIN MEASURES: Changes in the incarcerated population's size, composition, housing, and activities. For the risk factor analysis, the exposure variables were room type (cells vs. dormitories) and labor participation (any room occupant participating in the prior 2 weeks) and the outcome variable was incident COVID-19 case rates. KEY RESULTS: The incarcerated population decreased 19.1% (119,401 to 96,623) during the study period. On October 10, 2020, 11.5% of residents were aged ≥60, 18.3% had high COVID-19 risk scores, 31.0% participated in out-of-room labor, and 14.8% lived in rooms with ≥10 occupants. Nearly 40% of residents with high COVID-19 risk scores lived in dormitories. In 9 prisons with major outbreaks (6,928 rooms; 21,750 residents), dormitory residents had higher infection rates than cell residents (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.51 95% CI, 2.25-2.80) and residents of rooms with labor participation had higher rates than residents of other rooms (AHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.39-1.74). CONCLUSION: Despite reductions in room occupancy and mixing, California prisons still house many medically vulnerable residents in risky settings. Reducing risks further requires a combination of strategies, including rehousing, decarceration, and vaccination.