Health Equity: What the Neuroradiologist Needs to Know

Health equity means that everyone has the opportunity to be as healthy as possible, but achieving health equity requires the removal of obstacles to health such as poverty, discrimination, unsafe environments, and lack of access to health care. The pandemic has highlighted the awareness and urgency of delivering patient-centered, high-value care. Disparities in care are antithetical to health equity and have been seen throughout medicine and radiology, including neuroradiology. Health disparities result in low value and costly care that is in conflict with evidence-based medicine, quality standards, and best practices. Although the subject of health equity is often framed as a moral or social justice issue, there are compelling economic arguments that also favor health equity. Not only can waste in health care expenditures be countered but more resources can be devoted to high-value care and other vital national economic interests, including sustainable support for our health system and health providers. There are many opportunities for neuroradiologists to engage in the advancement of health equity, while also advancing the interests of the profession and patient-centered high-value care. Although there is no universal consensus on a definition of health equity, a recent report seeking clarity on the lexicon offered the following conceptual framework: "Health equity means that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. This requires removing obstacles to health such as poverty, discrimination, and their consequences, including powerlessness and lack of access to good jobs with fair pay, quality education and housing, safe environments, and health care."¹ This definition contrasts with that of health disparities that contribute to inequitable care as a result of demographic differences among populations such as those attributable to race, sex, access, residence, socioeconomic status, insurance status, age, religion, and disability.^2,3 In effect, the greater the health disparities and negative social determinants of health, the greater the health inequities will be.

Environmental Factors Predictive of No-Show Visits in Radiology: Observations of Three Million Outpatient Imaging Visits Over 16 Years

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of environmental and socioeconomic factors on outpatient cancellations and "no-show visits" (NSVs) in radiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis by collecting environmental factor data related to outpatient radiology visits occurring between 2000 and 2015 at our multihospital academic institution. Appointment attendance records were joined with daily weather observations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and estimated median income from the US Census American Community Survey. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to examine relationships between NSV rate and median income, commute distance, maximum daily temperature, and daily snowfall.

RESULTS

There were 270,574 (8.0%) cancellations and 87,407 (2.6%) NSVs among 3,379,947 scheduled outpatient radiology appointments and 575,206 unique patients from 2000 to 2015. Overall cancellation rates decreased from 14% to 8%, and NSV rates decreased from 6% to 1% as median income increased from $20,000 to $120,000 per year. In a multivariate model, the odds of NSV decreased 10.7% per $10,000 increase in median income (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.3%-11.1%) and 2.0% per 10°F increase in maximum daily temperature (95% CI: 1.3%-1.6%). The odds of NSV increased 1.4% per 10-mile increase in commute distance (95% CI: 1.3%-1.6%) and 4.5% per 1-inch increase in daily snowfall (95% CI: 3.6%-5.3%). Commute distance was more strongly associated with NSV for those in the two lower tertiles of income than the highest tertile (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Environmental factors are strongly associated with patients' attendance at scheduled outpatient radiology examinations. Modeling of appointment failure risk based on environmental features can help increase the attendance of outpatient radiology appointments.

The effect of patient-provider communication on medication adherence in hypertensive black patients: does race concordance matter?

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of a positive effect of collaborative patient-provider communication on patient outcomes, our understanding of this relationship is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether racial composition of the relationship modified the association between ratings of provider communication and medication adherence.

METHODS

Effect modification of the communication-adherence association, by racial composition of the relationship, was evaluated using general linear mixed models while adjusting for selected covariates.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety patients were in race-concordant (black patient, black provider) relationships, while 207 were in race-discordant (black patient, white provider) relationships. The communication-adherence association was significantly modified in race-discordant relationships (p = 0.04). Communication rated as more collaborative in race-discordant relationships was associated with better adherence, while communication rated as less collaborative was associated with poor adherence. There was no significant association between adherence and communication in race-concordant relationships (p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative patient-provider communication may play an influential role in black patients' adherence behaviors when receiving care from white providers.