Search

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that inborn errors of immunity (IEI) are underdiagnosed among underserved populations. However, there remains a lack of national studies evaluating diagnostic disparities in IEI. Objective: We examined disparities in the timely IEI diagnosis and related health outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of a US national claims database (years 2007 to 2021). Participants included patients diagnosed with an “unspecified immune deficiency” (uID) and presented with IEI-related symptoms, who later received an IEI diagnosis (n = 1429). We quantified the diagnostic interval from clinical suspicion (uID) to IEI diagnosis and examined its association with sociodemographic factors and related health outcomes. Results: The median (interquartile range) diagnostic interval was 369 (126-808) days. Diagnostic interval was 14% longer among patients residing in predominantly non-White neighborhoods, compared with those in predominantly White neighborhoods (P = .04), despite having more severe IEI-related symptoms at uID diagnosis and significantly more health care encounters for pneumonia (incidence rate ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-3.70) and sepsis (incidence rate ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.99) in the year after uID diagnosis. Residence in neighborhoods with greater deprivation was also associated with more severe IEI-related symptoms and greater health care utilization in the year after uID diagnosis. Older age was associated with longer diagnostic interval (P < .001). Longer diagnostic interval was associated with a longer interval to receiving IgR therapy (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.83). Conclusion: We observed significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in the timeliness of IEI diagnosis and IEI-related outcomes. Further studies are needed to address the underlying factors contributing to diagnostic inequity.

Background: For consumers without access to employer-sponsored or public insurance, health plan choices in the non-group (individual) insurance market that do not meet consumer needs have the potential for negative downstream implications for health and financial well-being. Objective: This qualitative interview study sought to understand consumers’ experiences and challenges with choosing a non-group health plan, among those who later had negative experiences with the plan they chose. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 36 participants from a large regional health insurance carrier in three states who enrolled in non-group plans in 2017 (21 in Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans and 15 enrolled off-Marketplace). Participants were included if they reported negative experiences using their plan after enrollment, such as higher-than-expected medical costs. Interviews explored challenges choosing a plan; information needed for choosing; usefulness of available tools; and preferred format for interventions to improve plan choice experiences. We analyzed interview transcripts using thematic content analysis. Results: Study participants reported experiencing substantial challenges to choosing an insurance plan. Key barriers included understanding insurance terms, finding relevant information, and making comparisons across plans. Participants valued the ability to make comparisons across carriers when using the Marketplace websites but were less satisfied with customer service. Suggestions for improvement included greater standardization of plans and language and availability of customized one-on-one assistance. Conclusion: Findings from this study suggest that health plan selection in the non-group market presents challenges to consumers that may be addressed through enrollment assistance and improved presentation of information. Personalized assistance to find and choose coverage may lead to plan choices that better meet consumer needs and increase confidence choosing a plan in subsequent enrollment periods.