Dataset Information

Surgery wait times and specialty services for insured and uninsured breast cancer patients: does hospital safety net status matter?

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether safety net and non-safety net hospitals influence inpatient breast cancer care in insured and uninsured women and in white and African American women. DATA SOURCES: Six years of Virginia Cancer Registry and Virginia Health Information discharge data were linked and supplemented with American Hospital Association data. STUDY DESIGN: Hierarchical generalized linear models and linear probability regression models were used to estimate the relationship between hospital safety net status, the explanatory variables, and the days from diagnosis to mastectomy and the likelihood of breast reconstruction. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The time between diagnosis and surgery was longer in safety net hospitals for all patients, regardless of insurance source. Medicaid insured and uninsured women were approximately 20 percent less likely to receive reconstruction than privately insured women. African American women were less likely to receive reconstruction than white women. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of health reform, disparities may potentially worsen if safety net hospitals' burden of care increases without commensurate increases in reimbursement and staffing levels. This study also suggests that Medicaid expansions may not improve outcomes in inpatient breast cancer care within the safety net system.

SUBMITTER: Bradley CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3419883 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgery wait times and specialty services for insured and uninsured breast cancer patients: does hospital safety net status matter?

Bradley Cathy J CJ Dahman Bassam B Shickle Lisa M LM Lee Woolton W

Health services research 20110923 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether safety net and non-safety net hospitals influence inpatient breast cancer care in insured and uninsured women and in white and African American women.<h4>Data sources</h4>Six years of Virginia Cancer Registry and Virginia Health Information discharge data were linked and supplemented with American Hospital Association data.<h4>Study design</h4>Hierarchical generalized linear models and linear probability regression models were used to estimate the relations ...[more]

PMID: 22092155

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSafety net hospitals (SNH) provide many community services. The cost of providing these services is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine what safety net criteria are associated with differences in hospital operating margin.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of US acute care hospitals from 2017 to 2019 included eligible hospitals identified from US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cost Reports.ExposuresFive domains of SNH: undercompensated care measured using the Disproportionate Share Hospital index, uncompensated care, essential community services, neighborhood disadvantage, and sole community hospital and critical access hospital status. Each was categorized as a quintile or binary response. Covariates included hospital ownership, size, teaching status, census region, urbanicity, and wage index.Main outcomes and measuresOperating margin and its association with each safety net criterion was determined using linear regression adjusting for all safety net criteria and covariates.ResultsA total of 4219 hospitals were analyzed, of which 3329 hospitals (78.9%) satisfied at least 1 safety net criterion; 23 hospitals (0.5%) met 4 or all 5 criteria. Among safety net criteria, the highest quintile of undercompensated care (-6.2 percentage point difference compared with lowest quintile; 95% CI, -8.2 to -4.2 percentage points), uncompensated care (-3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.1 to -1.6 percentage points), and neighborhood disadvantage (-3.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.7 to -2.1 percentage points) were each associated with a lower operating margin. No association with operating margin was found between critical access or sole community hospital status (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.7 percentage points) or the highest vs lowest quintile of essential services (0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 2.7 percentage points). Among essential services, burn, inpatient psychiatry, and primary care services were associated with lower operating margin, while others were either not associated or showed positive association. Fall-off in operating margin by level of uncompensated care was most severe in the highest percentiles of uncompensated care, with the most marked declines among those with the lowest operating margin.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of SNH, hospitals in the highest quintiles of undercompensated care, uncompensated care, and neighborhood disadvantage were more financially vulnerable than those not in the top quintile, especially when they met numerous of these criteria. Ensuring targeting of financial support to these hospitals could improve their financial stability.

Project description:Objective: Community addiction treatment agencies have utilized Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx), a proven implementation strategy, to reduce appointment wait-times. However, its effectiveness at reducing medication access wait-times has not been explored. Thus, we conducted an exploratory analysis to evaluate the impact of the NIATx implementation strategies on reduced wait-times to addiction, psychotropic or both medications for individuals with co-occurring disorders (COD). Methods: In a cluster-randomized waitlist control group design, community addiction treatment agencies (n = 49) were randomized to receive the NIATx strategy (Cohort 1, n = 25) or to a Waitlist control (Cohort 2, n = 24). All agencies had a 12-month active intervention period. The primary outcome was the medication encounter wait-time. A univariate general linear model analysis utilizing a logarithmic (log10) transformation examined medication wait-times improvements. Results: The intent-to-treat analysis for psychotropic medications and both medications (reflecting integrated treatment) showed significant main effects for intervention and time, especially comparing Baseline and Year 1 to Year 2. Conversely, only the main effect for time was significant for addiction medications. Wait-time reductions in Cohort 1 agencies was delayed and occurred in the sustainment phase. Wait-times to a psychotropic, addiction, or both medications encounter declined by 3 days, 4.9 days, and 6.8 days, respectively. For Cohort 2 agencies, reduced wait-times were seen for psychotropic (3.4 days), addiction (6 days), and both medications (4.9 days) during their active implementation period. Same- or next-day medication access also improved. Conclusions: NIATx implementation strategies reduced medication encounter wait-times but timing of agency improvements varied. Despite a significant improvement, a three-week wait-time to receive integrated pharmacological interventions is clinically suboptimal for individuals with a COD in need of immediate intervention. Community addiction treatment agencies should identify barriers and implement changes to improve medication access so that their patients "wait no longer" to receive integrated treatment and medications for their COD.

Project description:BackgroundOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is accepted as safe and effective for medically stable patients to complete intravenous (IV) antibiotics in an outpatient setting. Since, however, uninsured patients in the United States generally cannot afford OPAT, safety-net hospitals are often burdened with long hospitalizations purely to infuse antibiotics, occupying beds that could be used for patients requiring more intensive services. OPAT is generally delivered in one of four settings: infusion centers, nursing homes, at home with skilled nursing assistance, or at home with self-administered therapy. The first three-termed healthcare-administered OPAT (H-OPAT)--are most commonly used in the United States by patients with insurance funding. The fourth--self-administered OPAT (S-OPAT)--is relatively uncommon, with the few published studies having been conducted in the United Kingdom. With multidisciplinary planning, we established an S-OPAT clinic in 2009 to shift care of selected uninsured patients safely to self-administration of their IV antibiotics at home. We undertook this study to determine whether the low-income mostly non-English-speaking patients in our S-OPAT program could administer their own IV antimicrobials at home with outcomes as good as, or better than, those receiving H-OPAT.Methods and findingsParkland Hospital is a safety-net hospital serving Dallas County, Texas. From 1 January 2009 to 14 October 2013, all uninsured patients meeting criteria were enrolled in S-OPAT, while insured patients were discharged to H-OPAT settings. The S-OPAT patients were trained through multilingual instruction to self-administer IV antimicrobials by gravity, tested for competency before discharge, and thereafter followed at designated intervals in the S-OPAT outpatient clinic for IV access care, laboratory monitoring, and physician follow-up. The primary outcome was 30-d all-cause readmission, and the secondary outcome was 1-y all-cause mortality. The study was adequately powered for readmission but not for mortality. Clinical, sociodemographic, and outcome data were collected from the Parkland Hospital electronic medical records and the US census, constituting a historical prospective cohort study. We used multivariable logistic regression to develop a propensity score predicting S-OPAT versus H-OPAT group membership from covariates. We then estimated the effect of S-OPAT versus H-OPAT on the two outcomes using multivariable proportional hazards regression, controlling for selection bias and confounding with the propensity score and covariates. Of the 1,168 patients discharged to receive OPAT, 944 (81%) were managed in the S-OPAT program and 224 (19%) by H-OPAT services. In multivariable proportional hazards regression models controlling for confounding and selection bias, the 30-d readmission rate was 47% lower in the S-OPAT group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.53; 95% CI 0.35-0.81; p = 0.003), and the 1-y mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.37-2.00; p = 0.73). The S-OPAT program shifted a median 26 d of inpatient infusion per patient to the outpatient setting, avoiding 27,666 inpatient days. The main limitation of this observational study-the potential bias from the difference in healthcare funding status of the groups-was addressed by propensity score modeling.ConclusionsS-OPAT was associated with similar or better clinical outcomes than H-OPAT. S-OPAT may be an acceptable model of treatment for uninsured, medically stable patients to complete extended courses of IV antimicrobials at home.

Dataset Information

Surgery wait times and specialty services for insured and uninsured breast cancer patients: does hospital safety net status matter?

Publications

Surgery wait times and specialty services for insured and uninsured breast cancer patients: does hospital safety net status matter?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets