Evidence for racial/ethnic disparities in emergency department visits following breast cancer surgery among women in California: a population-based study

Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position in emergency department utilization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aim: Evaluate the association of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position (SEP) on emergency department (ED) visits for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which may reflect access to and quality of cancer care.Materials & methods: Patients with HCC identified from a commercial multi-payer claims database between 2015 and 2018 were matched to near-neighborhood social determinants of health (SDOH) and stratified by race/ethnicity and SEP (proxied by annual household income). Analyses evaluated the effect of race/ethnicity and SEP on ED utilization, adjusting for SDOH, demographic and clinical characteristics using multivariable regression methods.Results: A total of 22,247 patients were included. Black and Hispanic patients had 43 and 18% higher ED utilization than White patients at higher-income levels (p < 0.01); these differences were nonsignificant at lower-income. Regardless of income level, Asian patients had lower ED utilization.Conclusion: Further research on the intersectionality between race/ethnicity, SEP and other SDOH may guide structural-level interventions to address health inequities.

The Value of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Race and Ethnicity Affecting Patients

Patient race and ethnicity are important factors in health-care inequity, including care for the patient with hand and upper extremity pathologic condition. Physician diversity has been shown to promote better access, improve health-care quality, and improve satisfaction for underserved populations. Concordance, most often defined as a similarity or shared identity between physician and patient, has been shown to have a positive influence on health-care disparities. Although diversity among Hand surgeons is increasing, it is not matching the diversity of the population as a whole. It is imperative that we work to increase and maintain diversity in order to provide the best care for our patients.

Assessing the Coverage of US Cancer Center Primary Catchment Areas

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are expected to engage communities and reduce the burden of cancer in their catchment areas. However, the extent to which cancer centers adequately reach the entire US population is unknown.

METHODS

We surveyed all members of the Association of American Cancer Institutes (N = 102 cancer centers) to document and map each cancer center's primary catchment area. Catchment area descriptions were aggregated to the county level. Catchment area coverage scores were calculated for each county and choropleths generated representing coverage across the US. Similar analyses were used to overlay US population density, cancer incidence, and cancer-related mortality compared with each county's cancer center catchment area coverage.

RESULTS

Roughly 85% of US counties were included in at least one cancer center's primary catchment area. However, 15% of US counties, or roughly 25 million Americans, do not reside in a catchment area. When catchment area coverage was integrated with population density, cancer incidence, and cancer-related mortality metrics, geographical trends in both over- and undercoverage were apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic gaps in cancer center catchment area coverage exist and may be propagating cancer disparities. Efforts to ensure coverage to all Americans should be a priority of cancer center leadership.

IMPACT

This is the first known geographic analysis and interpretation of the primary catchment areas of all US-based cancer centers and identifies key geographic gaps important to target for disparities reduction. See related commentary by Lieberman-Cribbin and Taioli, p. 949.