Specialty Care Utilization Among Adults with Limited English Proficiency

BACKGROUND

People with limited English proficiency (LEP) face greater barriers to accessing medical care than those who are English proficient (EP). Language-related differences in the use of outpatient care across the full spectrum of physician specialties have not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outpatient visit rates to physicians in 28 specialties by people with LEP vs EP.

DESIGN

Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis of nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (pooled 2013-2018) with adjustment for age, sex, and self-reported health status.

PARTICIPANTS

149,611 survey respondents aged 18 and older.

EXPOSURE

LEP, defined as taking the survey in a language other than English.

MAIN MEASURES

Annual per capita adjusted visit rate ratios (ARRs) comparing visit rates by LEP and EP persons to individual specialties, and to three categories of specialties: (1) primary care (internal or family medicine, geriatrics, general practice, or obstetrics/gynecology), (2) medical-subspecialties, or (3) surgical specialties.

KEY RESULTS

Patients with LEP were underrepresented in 26 of 28 specialties. Disparities were particularly large for the following: pulmonology (ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), orthopedics (ARR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), otolaryngology (ARR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59), and psychiatry (ARR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58). Among individuals with several specific common chronic conditions, LEP-EP disparities in visits to specialties in those conditions generally persisted. Disparities were larger for medical subspecialties (ARR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.46) and surgical specialties (ARR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50) than for primary care (ARR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LEP are underrepresented in most outpatient specialty practices, particularly medical subspecialties and surgical specialties. Our findings highlight the need to remove language barriers to physician services in order to ensure access to the full spectrum of outpatient specialty care for people with LEP.

Upper and Lower Extremity Measurement of Tissue Sodium and Fat Content in Patients with Lipedema

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare tissue sodium and fat content in the upper and lower extremities of participants with lipedema versus controls using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

MRI was performed at 3.0 T in females with lipedema (n = 15, age = 43.2 ± 10.0 years, BMI = 30.3 ± 4.4 kg/m² ) and controls without lipedema (n = 14, age = 42.8 ± 13.2 years, BMI = 28.8 ± 4.4 kg/m² ). Participants were assessed for pain and disease stage. Sodium MRI was performed in the forearm and calf to quantify regional tissue sodium content (TSC, mmol/L). Chemical-shift-encoded water-fat MRI was performed in identical regions for measurement of fat/water (ratio).

RESULTS

In the calf, skin TSC (16.3 ± 2.6 vs. 14.4 ± 2.2 mmol/L, P = 0.04), muscle TSC (20.3 ± 3.0 vs. 18.3 ± 1.7 mmol/L, P = 0.03), and fat/water (1.03 ± 0.37 vs. 0.56 ± 0.21 ratio, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in participants with lipedema versus control participants. In the forearm, skin TSC (13.4 ± 3.3 vs. 12.0 ± 2.3 mmol/L, P = 0.2, Cohen's d = 0.50) and fat/water (0.65 ± 0.24 vs. 0.48 ± 0.24 ratio, P = 0.07, Cohen's d = 0.68) demonstrated moderate effect sizes in participants with lipedema versus control participants. Calf skin TSC was significantly correlated with pain (Spearman's rho = 0.55, P = 0.03) and disease stage (Spearman's rho = 0.82, P < 0.001) among participants with lipedema.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-measured tissue sodium and fat content are significantly higher in the lower extremities, but not upper extremities, of patients with lipedema compared with BMI-matched controls.