Dataset Information

Disparities in Low-Vision Device Use Among Older US Medicare Recipients.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Low-vision assistive devices are not covered by Medicare and many private insurers, although there is evidence that they can improve functioning and quality of life. Little is known about whether sociodemographic disparities exist in the use of low-vision services by Medicare beneficiaries.

Objective

To determine if sociodemographic disparities exist in the use of low-vision services by Medicare beneficiaries.

Design, setting, and participants

Cross-sectional population-based survey. The National Health Interview Survey is an annually administered nationally representative US survey. Data used in this study were from the 2002, 2008, and 2016 National Health Interview Survey vision supplement. Participants who were Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older with self-reported vision impairment were included.

Main outcomes and measures

Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate if sociodemographic or economic factors were associated with self-reported use of low-vision devices or low-vision rehabilitation among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who self-reported vision impairment.

Results

There were 3058 participants included in the study. The survey weighted proportion of participants who were men was 37.9% (95% CI, 35.8%-40.0%), while 79.1% (95% CI, 77.2%-80.9%) were non-Hispanic white, 10.2% (95% CI, 9.0%-11.5%) were non-Hispanic black, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.6%-8.1%) were Hispanic, and 4.0% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.0%) identified with another race/ethnicity. The weighted proportion who reported using low-vison devices and low-vision rehabilitation were 26.1% (95% CI, 24.2%-28.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.3%), respectively. In a model adjusted for ocular diagnoses, Hispanic individuals (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.97) and individuals from other races/ethnicities (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.80), but not black individuals, were significantly less likely to report using low-vision devices than white individuals. In the model that was not adjusted for ocular diagnoses, black individuals (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99) were also significantly less likely to report using low-vision devices. There were no significant racial/ethnic disparities for reported use of low-vision rehabilitation.

Conclusions and relevance

Additional research is needed to clarify the association between sociodemographics and use of low-vision services in the Medicare population. However, policy makers could consider expanding Medicare coverage to include low-vision devices in an effort to address significant disparities in the use of this evidence-based intervention.

SUBMITTER: Choi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6547628 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBiosimilars, or highly similar versions of complex biologic drugs, have the potential to slow drug spending growth; however, biosimilar uptake in the United States has been slow. Little is known about barriers to biosimilar uptake following drug launch.ObjectiveTo examine the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with biosimilar use in the Medicare population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used regression analysis to estimate the association between biosimilar use and various characteristics. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a filgrastim product or an infliximab product between the launch of a class's first biosimilar (quarter 3 2015 for filgrastim-sndz and quarter 4 2016 for infliximab-dyyb) and December 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020.ExposuresPatient demographic characteristics and product clinical indications; physician demographic characteristics, specialty, and volume of filgrastim or infliximab biologic administration; hospital size, ownership, 340B status, academic medical center status, and system affiliation; physician office size and multispecialty status.Main outcomes and measuresAdministration of a filgrastim or infliximab biosimilar.ResultsThe final filgrastim sample included 25 870 patients (11 857 [45.8%] men; 14 224 [55.0%] aged 65-74 years; 22 617 [87.4%] White individuals) who had 259 178 administrations (79 017 [30.5%] biosimilar administrations), and the final infliximab sample included 14 786 patients (4765 [32.2%] men; 8773 [59.3%] aged 65-74 years; 13 467 [91.1%] White individuals) who had 174 973 administrations (9012 [5.2%] biosimilar administrations). In adjusted analyses, no patient demographic characteristics and 2 of 9 clinical indications (22.2%) were associated with biosimilar use (filgrastim, neutropenia: adjusted difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.2] percentage points; P = .03; infliximab, Crohn disease: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8] percentage points; P = .001). Several physician characteristics were associated with biosimilar administrations, including high filgrastim or infliximab prescribing volume (high vs low volume, filgrastim: adjusted difference, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8] percentage points; P = .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.2] percentage points; P = .007) and specialty (eg, hematologist-oncologists vs primary care, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.5] percentage points; P = .02). Numerous practice characteristics were associated with biosimilar use, including practice setting (outpatient hospital department vs office practice, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -16.1 [95% CI, -18.1 to -14.1] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2 to 3.7] percentage points; P < .001) and hospital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95% CI, -21.6 to -13.3] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 10.8 [95% CI, 6.7 to 14.9] percentage points; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, practice setting and hospital ownership status had the largest associations with biosimilar usage, suggesting practices play a role in steering physicians toward certain medications. However, the types of practices with high biosimilar use differed by drug class. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these differences across drug classes.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:A recent trend in low vision (LV) has been towards the use of portable head-mounted displays (HMDs) to enhance residual vision. The decision process around the (non-)use of such devices have been identified as multifactorial. Among important barriers identified in the context of magnifying LV aids were transportation issues and insufficient training. In recent years, telerehabilitation has become of growing interest in healthcare because it allows individuals to remain at home while receiving rehabilitation services. A recent pilot study indicated encouraging outcomes; however, very few applications of telerehabilitation for LV have been tested systematically. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:To help guide evidence-based practice recommendations for this modality, we will carry out a feasibility study to assess the recruitment, retention, accessibility and acceptability of an eventual fully randomised trial of telerehabilitation for people with LV using HMDs. We will recruit 60 participants aged 18+ years among prospective eSight Eyewear owners, randomised 1:1 into two parallel groups. The active intervention will be the telerehabilitation operated by a LV therapist; the control arm will be the current self-training standard provided by the device vendor. The primary feasibility outcome measures will be: time to recruit participants, loss to follow-up, accessibility and acceptability of the telerehabilitation (satisfaction of the users and LV therapist). Exploratory outcomes will be the impact of telerehabilitation on eSight Eyewear use behaviour (discontinuance rate), and validated measures of assistive-technology-related quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation de Montréal métropolitain (CRIR# 1286-1217). Dissemination is planned via local, national and international healthcare conferences and peer-reviewed journal publications.

Project description:SignificanceHead-mounted low vision devices have received considerable attention in recent years owing to rapidly developing technology, facilitating ease of use and functionality. Systematic clinical evaluations of such devices remain rare but are needed to steer future device development.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate, in a multicenter prospective trial, the short- and medium-term effects of a head-worn vision enhancement device (eSight Eyewear).MethodsParticipants aged 13 to 75 years with stable vision (distance acuity, 20/60 to 20/400; visual field diameter >20°) were recruited across six sites. Data were collected at baseline (no device), at fitting (with device), and after 3 months of everyday use. Outcome measures were visual ability measured by the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire 48, distance acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study), reading performance (MNREAD chart), contrast sensitivity (MARS chart), face recognition, and a modified version of the Melbourne Low Vision Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index.ResultsAmong the 51 participants, eSight introduction immediately improved distance acuity (0.74 ± 0.28 logMAR), contrast sensitivity (0.57 ± 0.53 log units), and critical print size (0.52 ± 0.43 logMAR), all P < .001, without any further change after 3 months; reading acuity improved at fitting (0.56 ± 0.35 logMAR) and by one additional line after 3 months, whereas reading speed only slightly increased across all three time points. The Melbourne ADL score and face recognition improved at fitting (P < .01) with trends toward further improvement at 3 months. After 3 months of use, Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire 48 person measures (in logits) improved: overall, 0.84, P < .001; reading, 2.75, P < .001; mobility, 0.04, not statistically significant; visual information, 1.08, P < .001; and visual motor, 0.48, P = .02.ConclusionseSight introduction yields immediate improvements in visual ability, with face recognition and ADLs showing a tentative benefit of further use. Overall, visual ability, reading, and visual information showed greatest benefit with device use. Further studies need to examine benefits of practice and training and possible differential effects of underlying pathology or baseline vision.

Project description:Hospitals vary widely in ICU admission rates across numerous medical diagnoses. The extent to which variability in ICU use is specific to individual diagnoses or is a function of the hospital, regardless of disease, is unknown.Retrospective cohort study.A total of 1,120 acute care hospitals with ICU capabilities.Medicare beneficiaries 65 years old or older admitted for five medical diagnoses (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and a surgical diagnosis (hip fracture treated with arthroplasty) in 2010.None.We used multilevel models to calculate risk- and reliability-adjusted ICU admission rates, examined the correlation in ICU admission rates across diagnosis and calculated intraclass correlation coefficients and median odds ratios to quantify the variability in ICU admission rate that was attributable to hospitals. We also examined the ability of a high ICU-use hospital for one condition to predict high ICU use for other conditions. We identified 348,462 patients with one of the eligible conditions. ICU admission rates were positively correlated within hospitals for included medical diagnoses (r range, 0.38-0.59; p < 0.01). The top hospital quartile of ICU use for congestive heart failure had a sensitivity of 50-60% and specificity of 79-81% for detecting top quartile hospitals for each other conditions. After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, hospitals accounted for 17.6% (95% CI, 16.2-19.1%) of variability in ICU admission, corresponding to a median odds ratio of 2.3, compared to 25.8% (95% CI, 24.5-27.1%) and median odds ratio 2.8 for diagnosis. This suggests a patient with median baseline risk of ICU admission would more than double his/her odds of ICU admission if moving to a higher utilizing hospital.Hospitals account for a significant proportion of variation independent of measured patient and hospital characteristics, suggesting the need for further work to evaluate the causes of variation at the hospital level and potential consequences of variation across hospitals.

Project description:Black patients with peripheral arterial disease undergo amputation at two to four times the rate of white patients. In order to determine whether differences in attempts at limb salvage might contribute to this disparity, we studied the limb care received prior to amputation by black patients compared with whites.Using inpatient Medicare data for the years 2003 through 2006, we identified a retrospective sample of all beneficiaries who underwent major lower extremity amputation. "Limb salvage care" was defined as limb-related admissions and procedures that occurred during the 2 years prior to amputation. We used multiple logistic regression to compare rates of revascularization and other limb care received by black versus white amputees, adjusting for individual patient characteristics. We then controlled for hospital referral region in order to assess whether differences in care might be attributable to the geographic regions in which black and white patients received care. Finally, we examined the timing of revascularization relative to amputation for both races.Our sample included 24,600 black and 65,881 white amputees. Compared with whites, black amputees were more likely to be female and had lower socioeconomic status. Average age, rates of diabetes, and levels of comorbidity were similar between races. Black amputees were significantly less likely than whites to have undergone revascularization (23.6% vs 31.6%; P < .0001), any limb-related admission (39.6% vs 44.7%; P < .0001), toe amputation (12.9% vs 13.8%; P < .0005), or wound debridement (11.6% vs 14.2%; P < .0001) prior to amputation. After adjusting for differences in individual patient characteristics, black amputees remained significantly less likely than whites to undergo revascularization (odds ratios [OR], 0.72 [95% confidence interval, .68-.76]), limb-related admission (OR, 0.81 [0.78-0.84]), or wound debridement prior to amputation (OR, 0.80 [0.75-0.85]). Timing of revascularization relative to amputation was similar between races. Observed differences in care were shown to exist within hospital referral regions and were not accounted for by regional differences in where black and white patients received care.Black patients are much less likely than whites to undergo attempts at limb salvage prior to amputation. Further studies should explore whether this disparity might be attributable to race-related differences in severity of arterial disease, patient preferences, or physician decision making.

Project description:BackgroundThere are prominent geographic disparities in the life expectancy (LE) of older US adults between the states with the highest (leading states) and lowest (lagging states) LE and their causes remain poorly understood. Heart failure (HF) has been proposed as a major contributor to these disparities. This study aims to investigate geographic disparities in HF outcomes between the leading and lagging states.MethodsThe study was a secondary data analysis of HF outcomes in older US adults aged 65+, using Center for Disease Control and Prevention sponsored Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries over 2000-2017. Empiric estimates of death certificate-based mortality from HF as underlying cause of death (CBM-UCD)/multiple cause of death (CBM-MCD); HF incidence-based mortality (IBM); HF incidence, prevalence, and survival were compared between the leading and lagging states. Cox regression was used to investigate the effect of residence in the lagging states on HF incidence and survival.ResultsBetween 2000 and 2017, HF mortality rates (per 100,000) were higher in the lagging states (CBM-UCD: 188.5-248.6; CBM-MCD: 749.4-965.9; IBM: 2656.0-2978.4) than that in the leading states (CBM-UCD: 79.4-95.6; CBM-MCD: 441.4-574.1; IBM: 1839.5-2138.1). Compared to their leading counterparts, lagging states had higher HF incidence (2.9-3.9% vs. 2.2-2.9%), prevalence (15.6-17.2% vs. 11.3-13.0%), and pre-existing prevalence at age 65 (5.3-7.3% vs. 2.8-4.1%). The most recent rates of one- (77.1% vs. 80.4%), three- (59.0% vs. 60.7%) and five-year (45.8% vs. 49.8%) survival were lower in the lagging states. A greater risk of HF incidence (Adjusted Hazards Ratio, AHR [95%CI]: 1.29 [1.29-1.30]) and death after HF diagnosis (AHR: 1.12 [1.11-1.13]) was observed for populations in the lagging states. The study also observed recent increases in CBMs and HF incidence, and declines in HF prevalence, prevalence at age 65 and survival with a decade-long plateau stage in IBM in both leading and lagging states.ConclusionThere are substantial geographic disparities in HF mortality, incidence, prevalence, and survival across the U.S.: HF incidence, prevalence at age 65 (age of Medicare enrollment), and survival of patients with HF contributed most to these disparities. The geographic disparities and the recent increase in incidence and decline in survival underscore the importance of HF prevention strategies.