Health disparities attributed to Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible status in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a prevalent and debilitating disease that can be effectively treated by surgical revascularization. However, Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible patients have experienced worse long-term outcomes, notably higher rates of amputation and mortality, relative to other insurance groups. In the present study, we investigated how insurance status can perpetuate health disparities in PAD outcomes. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried from 2000 to 2011 for patients aged ≥18 years with PAD who had undergone surgical revascularization with hospitalization. Patients were stratified by insurance status, and dual-eligible patients were compared with Medicare-only, Medicaid-only, private insurance, and self-pay patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of dual-eligible status on postoperative outcomes such as inpatient mortality, complications, and favorable discharge (home or home with services). RESULTS: A total of 771,790 hospitalizations were included in the present analysis and stratified by insurance type. Dual-eligible patients had the highest rates of major (32%) and extreme (11%) severity of illness and the highest rates of major (19%) and extreme (6%) risk of mortality among all insurance groups (P < .001). Dual-eligibility status was independently associated with reduced odds of favorable discharge relative to all patients (P < .001) and increased length of stay relative to Medicare-only (P = .002) and private-payor groups (P < .001). Although dual-eligible patients had increased mortality odds relative to the Medicaid-only and self-pay groups, they did not have significantly different odds of perioperative complications relative to all other insurance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligible patients with PAD had had more severe clinical presentations, a greater risk of extended hospitalizations, and a lower likelihood of discharge to home, relative to patients without dual eligibility. Further studies are needed to examine the link between discharge disposition and disparities in healthcare outcomes and to investigate the interventions that effectively address the increased severity of PAD in dual-eligible patients.

Brain tumor craniotomy outcomes for dual-eligible medicare and medicaid patients: a 10-year nationwide analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dual-eligible (DE) patients, simultaneous Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, have been shown to have poorer clinical outcomes while incurring higher resource utilization. However, neurosurgical oncology outcomes for DE patients are poorly characterized. Accordingly, we examined the impact of DE status on perioperative outcomes following glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection. METHODS: We identified all admissions undergoing a craniotomy for glioma, meningioma, or metastasis resection in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. Assessed outcomes included inpatient mortality, complications, discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs. Multivariable regression adjusting for 13 patient, severity, and hospital characteristics assessed the association between DE status and outcomes, relative to four reference insurance groups (Medicare-only, Medicaid-only, private insurance, self-pay). RESULTS: Of 195,725 total admissions analyzed, 3.0% were dual-eligible beneficiaries (n = 5933). DEs were younger than Medicare admissions (P < 0.001) but older than Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions (P < 0.001). Relative to other insurance groups, DEs also exhibited higher severity of illness, risk of mortality, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores as well as treatment at low-volume hospitals (all P < 0.001). DEs had lower mortality than self-pay admissions (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, P = 0.017). Compared to Medicare, Medicaid, private, and self-pay admissions, DEs had lower rates of discharge disposition (OR 0.53, 0.50, 0.34, and 0.27, respectively, all P < 0.001). DEs also had higher complications (OR 1.23 and 1.20, respectively, both P < 0.05) and LOS (ß = 1.06 and 1.13, respectively, both P < 0.01) than Medicare and private insurance beneficiaries. Differences in discharge disposition remained significant for all three tumor subtypes, but only glioma DE admissions continued to exhibit higher complications and LOS. CONCLUSIONS: DEs undergoing definitive craniotomy for brain tumor had higher rates of unfavorable discharge disposition compared to all other insurance groups and, especially for glioma surgery, had higher inpatient complication rates and LOS. Practice and policy reforms to improve outcomes for this vulnerable clinical population are warranted.

Orbital Implants Receiving Food and Drug Administration Premarket Notification.

PURPOSE: This perspective explores the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) program, occasionally referred to as premarket notification, which facilitates faster marketing of Class II medical devices, such as orbital implants by demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to previously approved devices. This allows for FDA clearance, rather than FDA approval of orbital implants via comparison to currently marketed implants rather than clinically proven safety standards. METHODS: Utilizing the FDA's publicly available 510(k) Premarket Notification database, we conducted a thorough search of FDA-cleared orbital implants dating back to the inception of the 510(k) process in 1976. RESULTS: We found that 29 orbital implants received 510(k) FDA clearance between 1987 and 2022. Four of the 29 implants were recalled. Only 9 of 29 implants had available data on their predicate or comparison devices; of these 9, 3 implants received clearance based on devices that were subsequently recalled. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation into premarket approval of orbital implants identifies a shortcoming in the FDA 510(k) approval process. Long-term implant-associated morbidity is difficult to predict during premarket analysis but is further complicated for 510(k) cleared implants since devices approved based on substantial equivalence to recalled devices may not be automatically recalled. Clinicians should be aware of the approval process for the devices they select, and review of the 510(k) process, especially as it applies to substantial equivalence to devices subsequently recalled is warranted.

Outcomes after clipping and endovascular coiling for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage among dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Dual-eligible beneficiaries, individuals with both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, represent a high-cost and vulnerable population; however, literature regarding outcomes is sparse. We characterized outcomes in dual-eligible beneficiaries treated for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) compared to Medicare only, Medicaid only, private insurance, and self-pay. A 10-year cross-sectional study of the National Inpatient Sample was conducted. Adult aSAH emergency admissions treated by neurosurgical clipping or endovascular coiling were included. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for confounders. A total of 57,666 patients met inclusion criteria. Dual-eligibles comprised 2.8% of admissions and were on average younger (62.4 years) than Medicare (70.0 years), older than all other groups, and had higher mean National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Severity Scores than all other groups (p ≤ 0.001). Among patients treated by clipping, dual-eligibles were less often discharged to home compared to Medicare (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.87, p < 0.05) and all other insurance groups, p < 0.01. Likewise, those who received coiling were less often discharged to home compared to Medicaid (aOR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23-0.73), private (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.23-0.76) and self-pay patients (aOR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46). They also had increased odds of poor National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Outcome Measures compared to Medicaid, private, and self-pay patients, all p < 0.05. There were no differences in inpatient mortality or total complications. In conclusion, dual-eligible patients had higher aSAH severity scores, less often discharged home, and among patients who received coiling, dual-eligibles had increased odds of poor outcome. Dual-eligible patients with aSAH represent a vulnerable population that may benefit from targeted clinical and public policy initiatives.