The impact of consumer-directed health plans and patient socioeconomic status on physician recommendations for colorectal cancer screening

[Évaluation de la gravité du cancer colorectal dépisté dans le contexte de la crise sanitaire liée au COVID19 en région Ile-de-France]

BACKGROUND

After the announcement in March 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs were suspended in several countries. Compared to the lesions detected during previous campaigns, this study aims to assess the severity of CRC detected during the 2020 screening campaign in Île-de-France, the French region most affected by the 1st wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

The descriptive and etiological study included all faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results carried out between January 2017 and December 2020 on people aged 50-74, living in Île-de-France. First, the proportion of colonoscopies performed within one month (One-month-colo) following FIT; the yield of colonoscopy (proportion of colonoscopies with a neoplasm lesion among those performed) and CRC severity (TNM Classification, Level-0: T0/N0/M0, Level-1: T1/T2/N0/M0, Level-2: T3/T4/N0/M0; Level-3: T3/T4/N1/M0; Level-4: M1) were described in 2020 compared to previous campaigns (2017, 2018, and 2019). Subsequently, the link between the level of CRC severity and the predictive factors, including campaign year and time to colonoscopy, was analysed using polytomous multivariate regression.

RESULTS

The one-month-colo (2017: 9.1% of 11,529 colonoscopies; 2018: 8.5% of 13,346; 2019: 5.7% of 7,881; 2020: 6.7% of 11,040; p < 0.001), the yield (65.2%, 64.1%, 62.4%, 60.8% respectively, p < 0.001) were significantly different between campaigns. The proportion of CRC level-4 (4.8% in 2017 (653 CRC); 7.6% in 2018 (674 CRC); 4.6% in 2019 (330 CRC) and 4.7% in 2020 (404 CRC); p < 0.29) was not significantly different between campaigns. The probability of having CRC with a high severity level was inversely related to the time to colonoscopy but not to the campaign year. Compared to patients having undergone colonoscopy within 30 days, the odds were significantly reduced by 60% in patients having undergone colonoscopy after 7 months (adjusted Odds-Ratio: 0.4 [0.3; 0.6]; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The French indicators were certainly degraded before the first wave of the COVID-19. The delay in access to colonoscopy as well as its extension induced by the COVID-19 crisis had no impact in terms of cancer severity, due to a discriminatory approach prioritizing patients with evident symptoms.

Impact of High Deductible Health Plans on Diabetes Care Quality and Outcomes: Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of the impact of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) on the utilizations of services required for optimal management of diabetes and subsequent health outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of studies published between January 1, 2000, and May 7, 2021, was conducted that examined the impact of HDHP on diabetes monitoring (eg, recommended laboratory and surveillance testing), routine care (eg, ambulatory appointments), medication management (eg, medication initiation, adherence), and acute health care utilization (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, incident complications).

RESULTS

Of the 303 reviewed articles, 8 were relevant. These studies demonstrated that HDHPs lower spending at the expense of reduced high-value diabetes monitoring, routine care, and medication adherence, potentially contributing to the observed increases in acute health care utilization. Additionally, patient out-of-pocket costs for recommended screenings doubled, and total health care expenditures increased by 49.4% for HDHP enrollees compared with enrollees in traditional health plans. Reductions in disease monitoring and routine care and increases in acute health care utilization were greatest in lower-income patients. None of the studies examined the impact of HDHPs on access to diabetes self-management education, technology use, or glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

Although HDHPs reduce some health care utilization and costs, they appear to do so at the expense of limiting high-value care and medication adherence. Policymakers, providers, and payers should be more cognizant of the potential for negative consequences of HDHPs on patients' health.

Planning for the Post-COVID Syndrome: How Payers Can Mitigate Long-Term Complications of the Pandemic

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold, payers across the USA have stepped up to alleviate patients' financial burden by waiving cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing and treatment. However, there has been no substantive discussion of potential long-term effects of COVID-19 on patient health or their financial and policy implications. After recovery, patients remain at risk for lung disease, heart disease, frailty, and mental health disorders. There may also be long-term sequelae of adverse events that develop in the course of COVID-19 and its treatment. These complications are likely to place additional medical, psychological, and economic burdens on all patients, with lower-income individuals, the uninsured and underinsured, and individuals experiencing homelessness being most vulnerable. Thus, there needs to be a comprehensive plan for preventing and managing post-COVID-19 complications to quell their clinical, economic, and public health consequences and to support patients experiencing delayed morbidity and disability as a result.

High-Deductible Health Plans and Prevention

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are becoming more popular owing to their potential to curb rising health care costs. Relative to traditional health insurance plans, HDHPs involve higher out-of-pocket costs for consumers, which have been associated with lower utilization of health services. We focus specifically on the impact that HDHPs have on the use of preventive services. We critique the current evidence by discussing the benefits and drawbacks of the research designs used to examine this relationship. We also summarize the findings from the most methodologically sophisticated studies. We conclude that the balance of the evidence shows that HDHPs are reducing the use of some preventive service, especially screenings. However, it is not clear if HDHPs affect all preventive services. Additional research is needed to determine why variability in conclusions exists among studies. We describe an agenda for future research that can further inform public health decision makers on the impact of HDHPs on prevention.

Economic Disparities in Patients Undergoing Sigmoidectomy

Background and Objectives:

Disparities in health care outcomes and resources utilized are present in the treatment of many conditions and represent an area for targeted improvement. This study analyzes the differences in outcomes and total hospital charges between the highest and lowest income quartiles of patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy from 2013 to 2014 queried from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample Database who were categorized as the lowest and highest income quartile based on average income of the patient's ZIP code. Patients were grouped into income quartiles, as defined by average income in the ZIP code of residence. In-hospital complications were the primary outcome of this study. We hypothesized that patients in the lowest income quartile would have poorer outcomes than those in the highest income quartile prior to data collection.

Results:

The lowest (n = 40,995) and highest (n = 40,940) income quartiles are not significantly different based on age or gender. The lowest income quartile was sicker, with higher mean scores for the All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group Severity Index and All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group Risk of Mortality Index. The lowest income quartile cohort had higher rates of postoperative complications and higher total charges than those in the highest income quartile. Adjusted regression analysis showed significantly lower total charges for the lowest income quartile but no significant differences in overall complications, mortality rates, or nonhome discharge.

Conclusions:

Patients in the highest income quartile utilize more hospital resources than the lowest income quartile. Additional study is required to understand why these differences exist.

Key Points:

1. Significant differences in outcomes and hospital charges exist between socioeconomic groups undergoing sigmoidectomy. 2. There does not seem to be a difference in outcomes after sigmoidectomy among different socioeconomic groups. 3. Elective and laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is more frequently applied to higher socioeconomic groups. 4. Hospital charges are also greater among patients of higher socioeconomic groups undergoing sigmoid colectomy.

Question:

Does socioeconomic status affect outcomes and total charges in patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy?

Findings:

Unadjusted analysis showed significant disparities between the highest and lowest income quartile in outcomes after sigmoid colon resection. Adjusted analysis showed no difference in outcomes, with patients in the highest income quartile having higher total charges.

Meaning:

There is a value difference between high-income and low-income patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy.

US internists' awareness and use of overtreatment guidelines: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess physician views and perceived adoption of overtreatment guidelines and measure whether adoption of these guidelines influenced the recommendation of a targeted service.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey mailed from July 2014 to January 2015 to 902 internists who completed residency between 2003 and 2013, randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile.

METHODS

Poisson regression was used to model the rate of recommending a targeted service included in the guidelines, based on the level of guideline adoption.

RESULTS

A total of 456 physicians responded (51% response rate). Most expressed familiarity with overtreatment guidelines (88.5%), a comfort level with discussing these guidelines with patients (79.9%), and described overtreatment guidelines as a useful tool in their practice (81.6%). Physicians in the highest tertile of guideline adoption reported double-digit rates of recommending antibiotics for sinusitis (29.7%), mammogram at end of life (16.5%), and electrocardiogram testing for asymptomatic patients (11.0%). Physicians in the bottom tertile of guideline adoption reported lower rates of recommending x rays (-12.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -19.4% to -4.5%; P = .002), magnetic resonance imaging for lower back pain (-4.8%; 95% CI, -8.1% to -1.5%; P = .004), and cardiac testing for asymptomatic patients (-10.2%; 95% CI, -18.9% to -1.5%; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

US internal medicine physicians who completed residency between 2003 and 2013 reported high levels of adoption of overtreatment guidelines. Physicians who reported the highest levels of guideline adoption reported recommending services targeted by these guidelines in their practice.

Finding medical care for colorectal cancer symptoms: experiences among those facing financial barriers

Financial barriers can substantially delay medical care seeking. Using patient narratives provided by 252 colorectal cancer patients, we explored the experience of financial barriers to care seeking. Of the 252 patients interviewed, 84 identified financial barriers as a significant hurdle to obtaining health care for their colorectal cancer symptoms. Using verbatim transcripts of the narratives collected from patients between 2008 and 2010, three themes were identified: insurance status as a barrier (discussed by n = 84; 100% of subsample), finding medical care (discussed by n = 30; 36% of subsample) and, insurance companies as barriers (discussed by n = 7; 8% of subsample). Our analysis revealed that insurance status is more nuanced than the categories insured/uninsured and differentially affects how patients attempt to secure health care. While barriers to medical care for the uninsured have been well documented, the experiences of those who are underinsured are less well understood. To improve outcomes in these patients it is critical to understand how financial barriers to medical care are manifested. Even with anticipated changes of the Affordable Care Act, it remains important to understand how perceived financial barriers may be influencing patient behaviors, particularly those who have limited health care options due to insufficient health insurance coverage.

The impact of neighborhood socioeconomic status and race on the prescribing of opioids in emergency departments throughout the United States

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing in the emergency department (ED) are well described, yet the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To examine the effect of neighborhood SES on the prescribing of opioids for moderate to severe pain; and (2) to determine if racial disparities in opioid prescribing persist after accounting for SES.

DESIGN

We used cross-sectional data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey between 2006 and 2009 to examine the prescribing of opioids to patients presenting with moderate to severe pain (184 million visits). We used logistic regression to examine the association between the prescribing of opioids, SES, and race. Models were adjusted for age, sex, pain-level, injury-status, frequency of emergency visits, hospital type, and region.

MAIN MEASURES

Our primary outcome measure was whether an opioid was prescribed during a visit for moderate to severe pain. SES was determined based on income, percent poverty, and educational level within a patient's zip code.

RESULTS

Opioids were prescribed more frequently at visits from patients of the highest SES quartile compared to patients in the lowest quartile, including percent poverty (49.0 % vs. 39.4 %, P<0.001), household income (47.3 % vs. 40.7 %, P<0.001), and educational level (46.3 % vs. 42.5 %, P=0.01). Black patients were prescribed opioids less frequently than white patients across all measures of SES. In adjusted models, black patients (AOR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.66–0.81) and patients from poorer areas (AOR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.68–0.86) were less likely to receive opioids after accounting for pain-level, age, injury-status, and other covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients presenting to emergency departments from lower SES regions were less likely to receive opioids for equivalent levels of pain than those from more affluent areas. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to receive opioids for equivalent levels of pain than whites, independent of SES.

Factors explaining racial/ethnic disparities in rates of physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Physician recommendation plays a crucial role in receiving endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study explored factors associated with racial/ethnic differences in rates of screening recommendation.

METHODS

Data on 5900 adults eligible for endoscopic screening were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey. Odds ratios of receiving an endoscopy recommendation were calculated for selected variables. Planned, sequenced logistic regressions were conducted to examine the extent to which socioeconomic and health care variables account for racial/ethnic disparities in recommendation rates.

RESULTS

Differential rates were observed for CRC screening and screening recommendations among racial/ethnic groups. Compared with Whites, Hispanics were 34% less likely (P < .01) and Blacks were 26% less likely (P < .05) to receive this recommendation. The main predictors that emerged in sequenced analysis were education for Hispanics and Blacks and income for Blacks. After accounting for the effects of usual source of care, insurance coverage, and education, the disparity reduced and became statistically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic status and access to health care may explain major racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening recommendation rates.

A randomized trial comparing the effect of two phone-based interventions on colorectal cancer screening adherence

BACKGROUND

Early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer is associated with high survival rates; screening prevalence, however, remains suboptimal.

PURPOSE

This study seeks to test the hypothesis that participants receiving telephone-based tailored education or motivational interviewing had higher colorectal cancer screening completion rates compared to usual care.

METHODS

Primary care patients not adherent with colorectal cancer screening and with no personal or family history of cancer (n = 515) were assigned by block randomization to control (n = 169), tailored education (n = 168), or motivational interview (n = 178). The response rate was 70%; attrition was 24%.

RESULTS

Highest screening occurred in the tailored education group (23.8%, p < .02); participants had 2.2 times the odds of completing a post-intervention colorectal cancer screening than did the control group (AOR = 2.2, CI = 1.2-4.0). Motivational interviewing was not associated with significant increase in post-intervention screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored education showed promise as a feasible strategy to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Predictors of delayed-stage colorectal cancer: are we neglecting critical demographic information?

PURPOSE

We sought to distinguish roles of demographic variables and bowel segments as predictors of delayed versus early stage colorectal cancer in California.

METHODS

Demographic and anatomic variables for 66,806 colorectal cancers were extracted from the California Cancer Registry for 2004-2008 and analyzed using logistic regression as delayed versus early stage.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (OR) for binary stage categories comparing age <40 (OR=2.58; 95% CI=2.26-2.94), 40-49 (1.71; 95%=1.60-1.83) and 75+ (1.05; 1.02-1.09) relative to 50-74 years were computed. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, ORs for stage categories were: 1.05; 0.99-1.13 (non-Hispanic blacks), 1.08; 1.02-1.13 (Hispanics), and 1.05; 1.00-1.10 (Asian/others). Females had higher odds of delayed diagnosis (1.09; 1.06-1.13) than males. Descending ORs were measured for successively lower to highest socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles (OR 4:5=1.08; 1.03-1.14, OR 3:5=1.13; 1.08-1.19, OR 2:5=1.18; 1.12- 1.24, and OR 1:5=1.21; 1.14-1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Younger and older than age 50-74; females; Hispanic ethnicity; bowel segment contrasts (right/left, proximal/distal, cecum plus appendix/distal), and lower SES were independent predictors of delayed diagnosis. Low SES was the most robust predictor of delayed diagnosis, independent of other covariates. Approximately 77% of delayed diagnoses were in non-Hispanic whites and Asian/others. These findings illustrate the value of a community SES index for targeting egalitarian colorectal cancer screening.