Search

Mitral valve repair durability currently plays a key role in operative decision making and in defining optimal surgical practice. However, mitral valve durability outcomes measures are not captured by national registries and limited to centers that publish their outcomes. In this study, we aim to describe the scope of institutions represented by reports describing durability outcomes after mitral valve repair within the contemporary literature.A scoping review of the literature was performed to extract abstracts potentially reporting mitral valve operation outcomes published between 2000-2019. 370 full text articles reporting mitral valve durability outcomes by either reoperation rate or rate of recurrent mitral regurgitation met criteria for analysis. Study characteristics including case volume, country and institution of origin, and surgeon volume were extracted and used to calculate the proportion of total cases in the top 3, 5, and 10 represented countries and institutions by the sum of reported mitral valve repairs described. The top 5 of 21 countries represented 78.9% of the mitral valve repair cases described. The top 3 most represented institutions described 20,120 (37.3%) of all mitral valve repairs in 58 (33.9%) single-center studies.Published mitral valve repair durability data must be interpreted with caution when used to derive policies and practice recommendations that govern the cardiovascular community at large.

Objective Patients may call urgent care centers (UCCs) with urgent surgical conditions but may not be properly referred to a higher level of care. This study aims to characterize how UCCs manage Medicaid and privately insured patients who present with an emergent condition. Methods Using a standardized script, we called 1245 randomly selected UCCs in 50 states on 2 occasions. Investigators posed as either a Medicaid or a privately-insured patient with symptoms of an incarcerated inguinal hernia. Rates of direct emergency department (ED) referral were compared between insurance types. Results A total of 1223 (98.2%) UCCs accepted private insurance and 981 (78.8%) accepted Medicaid. At the 971 (78.0%) UCCs that accepted both insurance types, direct-to-ED referral rates for private and Medicaid patients were 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely than private patients to be referred to the ED [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.60]. Private patients who were triaged by a clinician compared to nonclinician staff were over 6 times more likely to be referred to the ED (OR 6.46, 95% CI 4.63-9.01). Medicaid patients were nearly 9 times more likely to have an ED referral when triaged by a clinician (OR 8.72, 95% CI 6.19-12.29). Conclusions Only one-third of UCCs across the United States referred an apparent emergent surgical case to the ED, potentially delaying care. Medicaid patients were more likely to be referred directly to the ED versus privately insured patients. All patients triaged by clinicians were significantly more likely to be referred to the ED; however, the disparity between private and Medicaid patients remained.

In recent years, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) have opened across the US. Uninsured patients may increasingly turn to these orthopedic-specific urgent care centers as a lower-cost alternative to emergency department or general urgent care center visits.To assess out-of-pocket costs and factors associated with these costs at MUCCs for uninsured and underinsured patients in the US.In this survey study, a national secret shopper survey was conducted in June 2019. Clinics identified as MUCCs in 50 states were contacted by telephone by investigators using a standardized script and posing as uninsured patients seeking information on the out-of-pocket charge for a new patient visit.State Medicaid expansion status, clinic Medicaid acceptance status, state Medicaid reimbursement rate, median income per zip code, and clinic region.The primary outcome was each clinic's out-of-pocket charge for a level 3 visit, defined as a new patient office visit requiring medical decision-making of low complexity. Linear regression was used to examine correlations of price with clinic policy against accepting Medicaid, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit.Of 565 MUCCs identified, 558 MUCCs were able to be contacted (98.8%); 536 of the 558 MUCCs (96.1%) disclosed a new patient visit out-of-pocket charge. Of those, 313 (58.4%) accepted Medicaid insurance and 326 (60.8%) were located in states with expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The mean (SD) price of a visit to an MUCC was $250 ($110). Clinic policy against accepting Medicaid (β, 22.91; 95% CI, 12.57-33.25; P .001), higher median income per zip code (β, 0.00056; 95% CI, 0.00020-0.00092; P = .003), and increased Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit (β, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.158-1.316; P = .01) were positively correlated with visit price. The overall regression was statistically significance (R2 = 0.084; P .001).In this survey study, MUCCs charged a mean price of $250 for a new patient visit. Medicaid acceptance policy, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit were associated with differences in out-of-pocket charges. These findings suggest that accessibility to orthopedic urgent care at MUCCs may be limited for underinsured and uninsured patients.

BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent “secret-shopper” study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution’s IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center’s affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

While rapid and accessible diagnosis is paramount to monitoring and reducing the spread of disease, COVID-19 testing capabilities across the U.S. remain constrained. For many individuals, urgent care centers (UCCs) may offer the most accessible avenue to be tested. Through a phone survey, we describe the COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs and provide a snapshot highlighting the limited COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs in states with the greatest disease burden.

As of March 22, 2020, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. has reached nearly 30,000. While rapid and accessible diagnosis is paramount to monitoring and reducing the spread of disease, COVID-19 testing capabilities across the U.S. remain constrained. For many individuals, urgent care centers (UCCs) may offer the most accessible avenue to be tested. Through a phone survey, we describe the COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs and provide a snapshot highlighting the limited COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs in states with the greatest disease burden.

We evaluated whether volume-based, rather than time-based, annual reporting of center outcomes for coronary artery bypass grafting may improve inference of quality, assuming that large center-level year-to-year outcome variability is related to statistical noise.We analyzed 2012 to 2016 data on isolated coronary artery bypass grafting using statewide outcome reports from New York and California. Annual changes in center-level observed-to-expected mortality ratio represented stability of year-to-year outcomes. Cubic spline fit related the annual observed-to-expected ratio change and center volume. Volume above the inflection point of the spline curve indicated centers with low year-to-year change in outcome. We compared observed-to-expected ratio changes between centers below and above the volume threshold and observed-to-expected ratio changes between consecutive annual and biennial measurements.There were 155 centers with median annual volume of 89 (interquartile range, 55-160) for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. The inflection point of observed-to-expected ratio variability was observed at 111 cases/year. Median year-to-year observed-to-expected ratio change for centers performing less than 111 cases (62 centers) was greater at 0.83 (0.26-1.59) compared with centers performing 111 cases or more (93 centers) at 0.49 (022-0.87) (P .001). By aggregating the outcome over 2 years, centers above the 111-case threshold increased from 93 centers (60%) to 118 centers (76%), but the median observed-to-expected change for all centers was similar between annual aggregates at 0.70 (0.26-1.22) compared with observed-to-expected change between biennial aggregates at 0.54 (0.23-1.02) (P = .095).Center-level, risk-adjusted coronary artery bypass grafting mortality varies significantly from one year to the next. Reporting outcomes by specific case volume may complement annual reports.