Physicians' political party affiliation and clinical management of obesity

Political voting in the United Kingdom 2019 general election and risk of living with obesity in a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence from the United States suggests that county/state rates of people with obesity are positively associated with voting for the Republican Party presidential candidate, although this question has not yet been studied at the individual level, and/or outside of the United States, where the health and political systems are very different in other countries.

OBJECTIVES

Using individual level data, assess differences in rates of people with obesity according to political voting in the United Kingdom 2019 general election, and examine whether people living in constituencies won by Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Conservative Party were more likely to be living with obesity than those living in constituencies won by MPs from other parties.

METHODS

Data was obtained by the Ipsos KnowledgePanel where panellists are recruited via a random probability unclustered address-based sampling method. 4000/14,016 panellists were randomly invited to provide data on socio-demographics, health outcomes, voting behaviour and height/weight.

RESULTS

2668/4000 (67%) of invitees provided data, 95/2668 (3.5%) were not eligible to vote, with the remaining 2573 (96.5%) included. Conservative Party voters were more likely to be living with obesity than those who voted Labour (OR:1.42 95% CI (1.01-1.99)) or Liberal Democrats (1.54 95% CI (1.00-2.37)). Conservative Party voters on average had significantly higher BMI scores than those voting Labour and Liberal Democrats; BMI mean difference 0.88 points (95% CI: 0.16-1.61) between Conservative and Labour voters, and 1.04 points (95% CI: 0.07-2.02) between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voters. There was no evidence participants living in constituencies won by Conservative MPs were more likely to be living with obesity than constituencies won by other party MPs.

CONCLUSION

Governments and public health agencies may need to focus on the political affiliation of the public when developing strategies to reduce the number of people with obesity.

Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Variation in Regional Political Preferences Predicted New Prescriptions after President Trump's Endorsement

CONTEXT

On March 19, 2020, President Donald Trump endorsed using hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment despite inconclusive evidence of the drug's effectiveness. This study sought to understand the influence of political preferences on prescription uptake by quantifying the relationship between a geographic area's partisan leaning and hydroxychloroquine prescription rates following Trump's endorsement.

METHODS

We analyzed hydroxychloroquine prescriptions filled in 205 continental US designated market areas (DMAs) between March 1, 2018, and July 31, 2020, and the percentage of votes for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election in each DMA. We estimated associations by using an empirical strategy resembling a difference-in-differences estimation.

FINDINGS

Before President Trump's endorsement, mean weekly hydroxychloroquine prescription rates were similar across DMAs with the highest and lowest Trump vote percentages (0.56 and 0.49 scripts per 100,000). After Trump's endorsement, although both high- and low-Trump-supportive DMAs experienced sharp increases in weekly hydroxychloroquine prescription rates, results indicated a 1-percentage-point increase in share of Trump votes was associated with 0.013, or 2%, more weekly hydroxychloroquine prescriptions per 100,000 people (b = 0.013, t = 2.20, p = .028).

CONCLUSION

President Trump's endorsement of an untested therapy influenced prescribing behavior, especially when that endorsement aligned with communities' political leanings.

Exploring a Need for a Cardiometabolic Disease Staging System as a Computerized Clinical Decision Support Tool: Qualitative Study

Background

Although cardiometabolic diseases are leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States, computerized tools for risk assessment of cardiometabolic disease are rarely integral components of primary care practice. Embedding cardiometabolic disease staging systems (CMDS) into computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSS) may assist with identifying and treating patients at greatest risk for developing cardiometabolic disease.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the current approach to medical management of obesity and the need for CMDS designed to aid medical management of people living with obesity, at risk of being obese, or diabetic at the point of care.

Methods

Using a general inductive approach, this qualitative research study was guided by an interpretive epistemology. The method included semistructured, in-depth interviews with primary care providers (PCPs) from university-based community health clinics. The literature informed the interview protocol and included questions on PCPs’ experiences and the need for a tool to improve their ability to manage and prevent complications from overweight and obesity.

Results

PCPs (N=10) described their current approaches and emphasized behavioral treatments consisting of combined diet, physical activity, and behavior therapy as the first line of treatment for people who were overweight or obese. Results suggest that beneficial features of CDSS include (1) clinically relevant and customizable support, (2) provision of a comprehensive medical summary with trends, (3) availability of patient education materials and community resources, and (4) simplicity and ease of navigation.

Conclusions

Implementation of a CMDS via a CDSS could enable PCPs to conduct comprehensive cardiometabolic disease risk assessments, supporting clinical management of overweight, obesity, and diabetes. Results from this study provide unique insights to developers and researchers by identifying areas for design optimization, improved end user experience, and successful adoption of the CDSS.

Variability in Primary Care Physician Attitudes Toward Medicaid Work Requirement Exemption Requests Made by Patients With Depression

Question

To what degree do physicians vary in their willingness to assist patients seeking exemptions from Medicaid work requirements?

Findings

In this mailed survey experiment with 715 responses, we found that 25% of physicians would assist a patient not qualifying under the state’s criteria for exemptions from Medicaid work requirements, and 54% would not, even when a patient qualifies. We found state, administrative effort, political affiliation, and perceived appropriateness to be significantly associated with willingness to assist.

Meaning

It is medically, ethically, and legally imperative that measures aimed at protecting vulnerable patients are not undermined by the burdensomeness of exemption procedures, or by physicians’ political or personal views.

Importance

Medicaid work requirements seek to promote health and personal responsibility but can also jeopardize health care access. Physicians have a central function in assisting patients with exemption requests, but it is unclear how their role affects patient welfare, professionalism, and the ethical and legal justification of programs.

Objective

To understand the degree of variability in physician response to assist patients with depression in receiving a Medicaid work requirement exemption.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a mailed survey experiment among practicing primary care physicians in the first 4 approved states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, New Hampshire) in July and October of 2019. We report response, cooperation, refusal, and contact rates in line with American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) standards.

Exposures

In each state, we used an experimental factorial design to randomize recipients to 1 of 4 patient clinical scenarios.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the indicator of willingness to assist a patient reporting depression with an exemption.

Results

We received 715 responses (overall AAPOR response rate: 21%; cooperation rate: 84%; refusal rate: 4%; contact rate: 25%). Respondents’ mean (SD) age was 54 (12) years; mean (SD) time since graduation, 26 (12) years; 435 (61%) identified as male; 177 as Democrat (25%); 156 as Republican (22%); 197 as Independent/other (28%); and 185 as declined/unknown (26%); the mean (SD) share of Medicaid patients was 29% (21%). We found that 97 of 387 physicians (25%) would offer assistance even when state policy would not support an exemption, and 170 of 315 (54%) would not offer assistance when regulations would require this. Moreover, 49 of 245 respondents (20%) who deemed an exemption appropriate indicated that they would not assist. State, administrative effort, political affiliation, and perceived appropriateness were statistically associated with the odds of assisting with an exemption.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of primary care physicians, we found substantial variation regarding willingness to assist patients qualifying for a work requirement exemption where none should exist. Insofar as work requirements are implemented again, it is critical to proactively identify measures to ensure that patients qualifying for exemptions are not put at risk due to either the burdensomeness of exemption procedures, or physicians’ political or personal views.