Search

Objective: To determine whether neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, as determined by the Area Deprivation Index, increases 30-day hospital re-observation risk., Participants and Methods: This retrospective study of 20% Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary observation stays from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2014, included 319,980 stays among 273,308 beneficiaries. We evaluated risk for a 30-day re-observation following an index observation stay for those living in the 15% most disadvantaged compared with the 85% least disadvantaged neighborhoods., Results: Overall, 4.5% (270,600 of 6,080,664) of beneficiaries had index observation stays, which varied by disadvantage (4.3% [232,568 of 5,398,311] in the least disadvantaged 85% compared with 5.6% [38,032 of 682,353] in the most disadvantaged 15%). Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher 30-day re-observation rate (2857 of 41,975; 6.8%) compared with least disadvantaged neighborhoods (13,543 of 278,005; 4.9%); a 43% increased risk (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.55). After adjustment, this risk remained (adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.22). Discharge to a skilled nursing facility reduced 30-day re-observation risk (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.69), whereas index observation length of stay of 4 or more days (3 midnights) conferred increased risk (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52); those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to discharge to skilled nursing facilities and more likely to have long index stays. Beneficiaries with more than one 30-day re-observation (chronic re-observation) had progressively greater disadvantage by number of stays (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.14). Observation prevalence varied nationally., Conclusion: Thirty-day re-observation, especially chronic re-observation, is highly associated with socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage, even after accounting for factors such as race, disability, and Medicaid eligibility. Beneficiaries least able to pay are potentially most vulnerable to costs from serial re-observations and challenges of Medicare observation policy, which may discourage patients from seeking necessary care., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare the case-finding ability of current national guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus and characterize factors that affect testing practices in an ambulatory population., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we reviewed a database of 46,991 nondiabetic patients aged 20 years and older who were seen at a large Midwestern academic physician practice from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Patients were included in the sample if they were currently being treated by the physician group according to Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality criteria. Pregnant patients, diabetic patients, and patients who died during the study years were excluded. The prevalence of patients who met the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and/or US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for diabetes screening, percentage of these patients screened, and number of new diabetes diagnoses per guideline were evaluated. Screening rates were assessed by number of high-risk factors, primary care specialty, and insurance status., Results: A total of 33,823 (72.0%) of 46,991 patients met either the ADA or the USPSTF screening criteria, and 28,842 (85.3%) of the eligible patients were tested. More patients met the ADA criteria than the 2008 USPSTF criteria (30,790 [65.5%] vs 12,054 [25.6%]), and the 2008 USPSTF guidelines resulted in 460 fewer diagnoses of diabetes (33.1%). By single high-risk factor, prediabetes (15.8%) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (12.6%) produced the highest rates of diagnosis. The number of ADA high-risk factors predicted diabetes, with 6 (23%) of 26 patients with 6 risk factors diagnosed as having diabetes. Uninsured patients were tested significantly less often than insured patients (54.9% vs 85.4%)., Conclusion: Compared with the ADA recommendations, the new USPSTF guidelines result in a lower number of patients eligible for screening and decrease case finding significantly. The number and type of risk factors predict diabetes, and lack of health insurance decreases testing.