Search

Background: The National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) was established in 2008 by the American College of Surgeons as a quality-improvement program for patients with breast disease. An NAPBC quality measure states post-mastectomy patients with ≥4 positive lymph nodes should receive lymph node radiation therapy (PMRT). Our objective was to examine how NAPBC accreditation has affected compliance with this quality measure.Study Design: Women who underwent mastectomy at either an NAPBC-accredited center or a Commission on Cancer-only accredited hospital were identified (2006 to 2013) in the National Cancer Data Base. The NAPBC centers accredited from 2009 to 2011 were included in the analysis. Patients were nested within centers using a mixed effects model to identify PMRT rates at each center before and after accreditation, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics.Results: Of 34,752 patients from 477 NAPBC-accredited centers and 958 Commission on Cancer-only accredited hospitals who underwent mastectomy with ≥4 positive lymph nodes, 21,638 patients received PMRT during the study period (62.3%). The NAPBC centers yielded a significantly higher rate of PMRT than Commission on Cancer hospitals (66.0% vs 59.2%; p < 0.001). For each year of accreditation (2009 to 2011), centers had significantly higher rates of radiation in the accreditation year compared with the year before accreditation (p < 0.001). Within those centers, the rate of radiation increased post-accreditation in each accreditation year (2009: 62.1% to 71.9%; 2010: 65.5% to 73.2%; 2011: 67.5% to 70.4%).Conclusions: The NAPBC accreditation is associated with higher PMRT rates and better adherence to the PMRT quality measure. Future studies with more centers and longer follow-up are needed to determine whether this trend continues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deals with a study which examined the fundamental differences between college and corporate life in the U.S. in the 1980s. Ways to resolve the differences; Application of abstract education to concrete situations; Emphasis on the value of teamwork.

This article presents outcomes from a Workshop entitled "Bioarchaeology: Taking Stock and Moving Forward," which was held at Arizona State University (ASU) on March 6-8, 2020. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU), and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research (CBR, ASU), the Workshop's overall goal was to explore reasons why research proposals submitted by bioarchaeologists, both graduate students and established scholars, fared disproportionately poorly within recent NSF Anthropology Program competitions and to offer advice for increasing success. Therefore, this Workshop comprised 43 international scholars and four advanced graduate students with a history of successful grant acquisition, primarily from the United States. Ultimately, we focused on two related aims: (1) best practices for improving research designs and training and (2) evaluating topics of contemporary significance that reverberate through history and beyond as promising trajectories for bioarchaeological research. Among the former were contextual grounding, research question/hypothesis generation, statistical procedures appropriate for small samples and mixed qualitative/quantitative data, the salience of Bayesian methods, and training program content. Topical foci included ethics, social inequality, identity (including intersectionality), climate change, migration, violence, epidemic disease, adaptability/plasticity, the osteological paradox, and the developmental origins of health and disease. Given the profound changes required globally to address decolonization in the 21st century, this concern also entered many formal and informal discussions., (© 2022 American Association of Biological Anthropologists.)

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known., Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers., Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer., Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database., Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access., Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Background: The Affordable Care Act sought to improve access to health care for low-income individuals. This study aimed to assess whether expansion of Medicaid coverage increased rates of post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) for patients who had Medicaid or no insurance., Methods: A retrospective analysis performed through the National Cancer Database examined women who underwent PMR and were uninsured or had Medicaid, private insurance, or Medicare, and whose race/ethnicity, age, and state expansion status were known. Trends in the use of PMR after passage of Medicaid expansion in 2014 were evaluated., Results: In all states and at all time periods, patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to undergo PMR as patients who had Medicaid or no insurance. In 2016, only 28.7 % of patients with Medicaid or no insurance in nonexpansion states underwent PMR (p < 0.001) compared with 38.5 % of patients in expansion states (p < 0.001). Patients in expansion states also have higher levels of education, higher income, and greater likelihood of living in metropolitan areas. Additionally, patients in all states saw an increase in early-stage disease, with a concomitant reduction in late disease, but this change was greater in expansion states than in non-expansion states., Conclusions: Expansion states have larger proportions of patients undergoing PMR than non-expansion states. This difference stems from significant differences in income, education, comorbidities, race, and location. Large metropolitan areas have the largest number of patients undergoing PMR, whereas rural areas have the least., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)