Search

Abstract: Purpose: Rural bypass for elective surgical procedures is a challenge for critical access hospitals, yet there are opportunities for rural hospitals to improve local retention of surgical candidates through alternative approaches to developing surgery lines of business. In this study we examine the effect of visiting surgical specialists on the odds of rural bypass. Methods: Discharge data from the 2011 State Inpatient Databases and State Ambulatory Surgery Databases for Iowa were linked to outreach data from the Office of Statewide Clinical Education Programs and Iowa Physician Information System to model the effect of surgeon specialist supply on rural patients’ decision to bypass rural critical access hospitals. Findings: Patients in rural communities with a local general surgeon were more likely to be retained in a community than to bypass. Those in communities with visiting general surgeons were more likely to bypass, as were those in communities with visiting urologists and obstetricians. Patients in communities with visiting ophthalmologists and orthopedic surgeons were at higher odds of being retained for their elective surgeries. Conclusion: In addition to known patient and local hospital factors that have an influence on bypass behavior among rural patients seeking elective surgery, availability of surgeon specialists also plays an important role in whether patients bypass or not. Visiting ophthalmologists and orthopedic surgeons were associated with less bypass, as was having local general surgeons. Visiting general surgeons, urologists, and obstetricians were associated with greater odds of bypass. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proxy respondents are frequently used in health surveys, and the proxy is most often the spouse. Longstanding concerns linger, however, about the validity of using spousal proxies, especially for older adults. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the concordance between self-reports and spousal proxy reports to a standard health survey in a small convenience sample of older married couples.Methods: We used the Seniors Together in Aging Research (STAR) volunteer registry at the University of Iowa to identify and consent a cross-sectional, convenience sample of 28 married husband and wife couples. Private, personal interviews with each member of the married couple using a detailed health survey based on the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) instrument were conducted using computer assisted personal interviewing software. Within couples, each wife completed the health survey first for herself and then for her husband, and each husband completed the health survey first for himself and then for his wife. The health survey topics included health ratings, health conditions, mobility, instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), health services use, and preventative services. Percent of agreement and prevalence and bias adjusted kappa statistics (PABAKs) were used to evaluate concordance.Results: PABAK coefficients indicated moderate to excellent concordance (PABAKs >0.60) for most of the IADL, health condition, hospitalization, surgery, preventative service, and mobility questions, but only slight to fair concordance (PABAKs = -0.21 to 0.60) for health ratings, and physician and dental visits.Conclusions: These results do not allay longstanding concerns about the validity of routinely using spousal proxies in health surveys to obtain health ratings or the number of physician and dental visits among older adults. Further research is needed in a nationally representative sample of older couples in which each wife completes the health survey first for herself and then for her husband, each husband completes the health survey first for himself and then for his wife, and both spouses' Medicare claims are linked to their health survey responses to determine not just the concordance between spousal reports, but the concordance of those survey responses to the medical record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural communities have disproportionately faced primary care shortages for decades in spite of policy efforts to prepare and attract primary care health professionals to practice in rural locales. Insight into how primary care physicians’ service patterns in rural areas differ from those in less rural places is important to better inform recruitment strategies that target primary care providers and rural communities. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to describe how primary care physician service patterns vary by rural‐urban location for a large, privately insured population. We discuss implications of service pattern variation on policy efforts to attract primary care providers to underserved rural areas. Methods: Claims data from fully insured commercial health insurance beneficiaries were used to develop service pattern profiles for primary care providers located in 1 of 4 types of rural‐urban areas in Iowa in 2009. The 4 area types are metropolitan, micropolitan, noncore area adjacent to a metro area, and noncore/nonadjacent rural area. Results: There were differences in primary care physicians’ service patterns by rural‐urban area type. Physicians in nonmetropolitan areas provided relatively more care on a per physician basis than those in the metropolitan area type, as well as more surgery, maternity, emergency, and nursing facility services than metropolitan physicians. Conclusion: Primary care physicians who value practicing a relatively diverse range of services may find locating in rural areas an appealing choice. Health systems and policy makers seeking to attract primary care physicians to rural areas can incorporate this reality into a recruitment strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Multiple studies have shown survival benefits in patients with cancer treated with radiation therapy, but access to treatment facilities has been found to limit its use. This study was undertaken to examine access issues in Iowa and determine a methodology for conducting a similar national analysis. Patients and Methods: All Iowa residents who received radiation therapy regardless of where they were diagnosed or treated were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR). Radiation oncologists were identified through the Iowa Physician Information System (IPIS). Radiation facilities were identified through IPIS and classified using the Commission on Cancer accreditation standard. Results: Between 2004 and 2010, 113,885 invasive cancers in 106,603 patients, 28.5% of whom received radiation treatment, were entered in ICR. Mean and median travel times were 25.8 and 20.1 minutes, respectively, to the nearest facility but 42.4 and 29.1 minutes, respectively, to the patient's chosen treatment facility. Multivariable analysis predicting travel time showed significant relationships for disease site, age, residence location, and facility category. Residents of small and isolated rural towns traveled nearly 3x longer than urban residents to receive radiation therapy, as did patients using certain categories of facilities. Conclusion: Half of Iowa patients could reach their nearest facility in 20 minutes, but instead, they traveled 30 minutes on average to receive treatment. The findings identified certain groups of patients with cancer who chose more distant facilities. However, other groups of patients with cancer, namely those residing in rural areas, had less choice, and some had to travel considerably farther to radiation facilities than urban patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Geographic disparities have raised important questions about factors related to treatment choice and travel time, which can affect access to cancer care. Patients and Methods: Iowa residents who received chemotherapy regardless of where they were diagnosed or treated were identified through the Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR), a member of the SEER program. Oncologists and their practice locations, including visiting consulting clinics (VCCs), were tracked through the Iowa Physician Information System. Oncologists, VCCs, and patients were mapped to hospital service areas (HSAs). Results: Between 2004 and 2010, 113,885 newly diagnosed invasive cancers were entered into ICR; among patients in whom these cancers were diagnosed, 31.6% received chemotherapy as a first course of treatment. During this period, 106 Iowa oncologists practiced in 14 cities, and 82 engaged in outreach to 85 VCCs in 77 rural communities. Of patients receiving chemotherapy, 63.0% resided in an HSA that had a local oncologist and traveled 21 minutes for treatment on average. In contrast, 29.3% of patients receiving chemotherapy resided in an HSA with a VCC, and 7.7% resided in an HSA with no oncology provider. These latter two groups of patients traveled 58 minutes on average to receive chemotherapy. Availability of oncologists and VCCs affected where patients received chemotherapy. The establishment of VCCs increased access to oncologists in rural communities and increased the rate that chemotherapy was administered in rural communities from 10% to 24%, a notable increase in local access. Conclusion: Access to cancer care is dependent on the absolute number of providers, but it is also dependent on their geographic distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little has been published on nontreatment of cancer, yet the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) indicates that 9.2% of patients receive no first course of treatment. Because the NCDB is limited to accredited cancer programs, there is potential for the actual rate to differ. We sought to understand the rate and characteristics of patients with cancer who receive no first course of treatment in a more population-representative data source. Materials and Methods: The Iowa Cancer Registry (ICR) strives to capture 100% of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Iowa residents, regardless of where they are diagnosed or treated. Results: In the ICR from 2004 to 2010, 12.3% of newly diagnosed patients with cancer did not receive a first course of treatment, which is 48% higher than the NCDB data for the state of Iowa (8.3%) during the same time period. Logistic regression indicated that nontreatment was more common in certain cancers (ie, small-cell and non-small-cell lung/bronchial cancers and low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma), advanced stages, older patients, those receiving treatment recommendations at nonaccredited cancer programs, and patients who never consulted an oncologist, radiation therapist, or surgeon. Distance to treatment facilities was not related to nontreatment. Conclusion: The rate of nontreatment varies by cancer type and stage and is higher in patients receiving initial treatment recommendations in nonaccredited cancer programs than in accredited cancer programs. This pattern seems to be correlated with patient characteristics but also may be related to provider and facility characteristics available to people locally that influence both patient and provider decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Where Do Patients With Cancer in Iowa Receive Radiation Therapy?" is presented.