Search

The increasing reliance on digital tools for standard healthcare practices in uninsured populations is poorly understood. This study aims to assess the impacts of a newly implemented digital reimbursement system at a student-run primary care clinic associated with an academic medical institution serving uninsured New York City residents. Pharmacy records of 94 unique patients receiving a total of 2770 reimbursements between October 17th, 2016, and May 18th, 2023, were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups (in-person vs. digital) based on their reimbursement preferences type. Demographic analyses were performed in addition to assessing reimbursement volumes, number of refunds, and duration until receipt of payment for each group. The clinic's total monthly reimbursement volume, number of prescriptions, and number of patients for the period before introduction of digital refunds was compared to the period after. The mean age (in-person = 52.7 ± 14.7 years, digital = 54.9 ± 12.9 years) was not statistically different between the groups. Patients in the digital group requested on average more refunds (digital = 47 refunds, in-person = 14 refunds), received higher total reimbursement amount (digital = $1131.24, in-person = $289.36), and they were reimbursed faster (digital = 56 days, in-person = 62 days). Since the introduction of the digital reimbursement option, our three-month reimbursement volume more than doubled from $481 to $1298. The average number of monthly reimbursements increased from 27 to 45 refunds, and the number of monthly patients increased from 6 to 9 patients. In summary, digital reimbursement options can facilitate medication reimbursement among uninsured patients. These results suggest that digital reimbursement systems result in higher utilization, faster refunds, and larger total reimbursements amount for uninsured and underserved patients., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Diabetic patients are known to have poor wound healing and worse outcomes following surgeries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate diabetes status and complications for patients receiving open rotator cuff repair., Methods: Patients undergoing open rotator cuff repair from 2006 to 2018 were identified in a national database. Patients were stratified into 3 cohorts: no diabetes mellitus, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Differences in demographics, comorbidities, and complications were assessed with the use of bivariate and multivariate analyses., Results: Of 7678 total patients undergoing open rotator cuff repair, 6256 patients (81.5%) had no diabetes, 975 (12.7%) had NIDDM, and 447 (5.8%) had IDDM. Bivariate analyses revealed that IDDM patients had increased risk of mortality, extended length of stay, and readmission compared to non-diabetic patients ( p  < 0.05 for all). IDDM patients had higher risks of major complications and readmission relative to NIDDM patients ( p  < 0.05 for both). On multivariate analysis, there were no differences in any postoperative complications between the non-diabetic, NIDDM, and IDDM groups., Discussion: Diabetes does not affect postoperative complications following open rotator cuff repairs. Physicians should be aware of this finding and counsel their patients appropriately. Level of Evidence: III., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: The long-term prevalence and risk factors for post-acute COVID-19 sequelae (PASC) are not well described and may have important implications for unvaccinated populations and policy makers., Objective: To assess health status, persistent symptoms, and effort tolerance approximately 1 year after COVID-19 infection DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study using surveys and clinical data PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents who were survivors of acute COVID-19 infection requiring Emergency Department presentation or hospitalization between March 3 and May 15, 2020., Main Measure(s): Self-reported health status, persistent symptoms, and effort tolerance KEY RESULTS: The 530 respondents (median time between hospital presentation and survey 332 days [IQR 325-344]) had mean age 59.2±16.3 years, 44.5% were female and 70.8% were non-White. Of these, 41.5% reported worse health compared to a year prior, 44.2% reported persistent symptoms, 36.2% reported limitations in lifting/carrying groceries, 35.5% reported limitations climbing one flight of stairs, 38.1% reported limitations bending/kneeling/stooping, and 22.1% reported limitations walking one block. Even those without high-risk comorbid conditions and those seen only in the Emergency Department (but not hospitalized) experienced significant deterioration in health, persistent symptoms, and limitations in effort tolerance. Women (adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.56), those requiring mechanical ventilation (aRRR 1.48, 1.02-2.14), and people with HIV (aRRR 1.75, 1.14-2.69) were significantly more likely to report persistent symptoms. Age and other risk factors for more severe COVID-19 illness were not associated with increased risk of PASC., Conclusions: PASC may be extraordinarily common 1 year after COVID-19, and these symptoms are sufficiently severe to impact the daily exercise tolerance of patients. PASC symptoms are broadly distributed, are not limited to one specific patient group, and appear to be unrelated to age. These data have implications for vaccine hesitant individuals, policy makers, and physicians managing the emerging longer-term yet unknown impact of the COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: Dr Jiabin Liu has ownership interest in Centauros Healthcare Analytics and Consulting, LLC; and is a consultant for Global Pain Management Solutions LLC. Dr Jeffrey Berger is co-editor-in-chief of JEPM. All other authors declare no competing interests. The authors additionally report no external funding for this study.