Search

Purpose: There are growing signs that the COVID‐19 virus has started to spread to rural areas and can impact the rural health care system that is already stretched and lacks resources. To aid in the legislative decision process and proper channelizing of resources, we estimated and compared the county‐level change in prevalence rates of COVID‐19 by rural‐urban status over 3 weeks. Additionally, we identified hotspots based on estimated prevalence rates. Methods: We used crowdsourced data on COVID‐19 and linked them to county‐level demographics, smoking rates, and chronic diseases. We fitted a Bayesian hierarchical spatiotemporal model using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm in R‐studio. We mapped the estimated prevalence rates using ArcGIS 10.8, and identified hotspots using Gettis‐Ord local statistics. Findings: In the rural counties, the mean prevalence of COVID‐19 increased from 3.6 per 100,000 population to 43.6 per 100,000 within 3 weeks from April 3 to April 22, 2020. In the urban counties, the median prevalence of COVID‐19 increased from 10.1 per 100,000 population to 107.6 per 100,000 within the same period. The COVID‐19 adjusted prevalence rates in rural counties were substantially elevated in counties with higher black populations, smoking rates, and obesity rates. Counties with high rates of people aged 25‐49 years had increased COVID‐19 prevalence rates. Conclusions: Our findings show a rapid spread of COVID‐19 across urban and rural areas in 21 days. Studies based on quality data are needed to explain further the role of social determinants of health on COVID‐19 prevalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I study the impact of expanding the 340B Drug Pricing Program to include Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) on Medicare Part B drug utilization and spending. The 340B program entitles certain hospitals and clinics to discounts on most outpatient drugs. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act expanded 340B eligibility to CAHs - small rural hospitals that receive cost-based reimbursement from Medicare. Exploiting variation in the predicted exposure to the 340B expansion in a difference-in-differences method, I find that the 340B expansion reduced Part B drug spending but did not affect Part B drug utilization. This finding contrasts with existing evidence about 340B's impact on hospitals but is consistent with the prediction that cost-based reimbursement dampens the incentives created by the 340B discounts. I also find suggestive evidence that CAHs passed the cost savings from 340B on to patients. These results add new perspectives to the ongoing debate over 340B., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The death of a healthy term infant may signal patient safety and quality issues. Various initiatives aim to encourage clinicians to learn from these events, but little evidence exists regarding how exposure to an unexpected newborn death may alter clinician practice., Objective: To examine the association between an unexpected newborn death and changes in obstetric and newborn procedures that may be used in response to potential fetal distress or newborn complications., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used difference-in-differences analysis of 2011 to 2017 US vital statistics data from 477 US counties experiencing an unexpected newborn death during the study period. All in-hospital live births in the 477 counties during the study period were included. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to September 2020., Exposures: The death of an infant aged 0 to 7 days following an unremarkable pregnancy owing to causes other than birth defects, accidents/assaults, or sudden infant death syndrome., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included binary variables capturing intervention in labor/delivery (induction, augmentation, cesarean delivery, forceps/vacuum) and procedures to avert and mitigate newborn complications (assisted ventilation, surfactant replacement therapy, antibiotics for suspected sepsis, neonatal intensive care unit admission)., Results: The main sample included 5.72 million births (2.54 million during preexposure time). Mean (SD) maternal age was 27.3 (5.8) years; 67% of mothers were White, and 12% were Black. Associations varied across the 4 estimated models. Following an unexpected newborn death, there was no significant increase in the probability of cesarean delivery in the full sample model (0.28 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.57 pp), but a significant increase in the other 3 models, with values ranging from 0.55 pp (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.88 pp) in the full sample model with matching to 0.66 pp (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.19 pp) in the 1-hospital county subsample with matching. There was a significant increase in the probability of newborn assisted ventilation in the full sample model with matching (0.46 pp; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83 pp), but no significant increase in the other 3 models, with estimates ranging from 0.33 pp (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.71 pp) to 0.69 pp (95% CI, -0.02 to 1.40 pp). An unexpected newborn death was not associated with a significant increase in antibiotic use in the full sample models (without matching: 0.19 pp; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.39 pp; with matching: 0.22 pp; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.46 pp), but was associated with a significant increase in both of the 1-hospital county subsample models (without matching: 0.38 pp; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.73 pp; with matching: 0.39 pp; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.77 pp)., Conclusions and Relevance: In some study models, an unexpected newborn death was associated with statistically significant increases in subsequent use of procedures to avert and mitigate fetal distress and newborn complications, which could reflect increases in identifying and proactively addressing serious potential complications or increased clinician caution applied across all cases. Future research should address whether these changes affect patient outcomes.

Undiagnosed chronic conditions are a common and costly problem in Medicare patients. This study examined whether a clinical home visit program was associated with an increased future detection of undiagnosed diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and atrial fibrillation. Members of Medicare Advantage Plans (MAP), including Chronic Special Needs Plans (C-SNP), were identified who received a comprehensive geriatric home visit under United Health Group's HouseCalls program and those who did not. Members with no medical or prescription drug claim for diabetes, COPD, and atrial fibrillation in the 12 months prior to the visit were selected. New diagnoses were then identified based on claims for office visits and/or prescription drugs in the 6 months after the HouseCalls visit. Members who received a visit had a significantly higher rate of detection of previously undiagnosed diabetes and COPD, but not of atrial fibrillation. The detection rates for diabetes within 6 months of the visit were 2.8% versus 2.3% (P < 0.01) for MAP and 7.1% versus 5.6% (P < 0.01) for C-SNP members. For COPD, 2.5% versus 2.2% (P < 0.01) of members in MAP and 5.3% versus 4.3% (P < 0.01) of members in C-SNP were newly diagnosed. New diagnoses for atrial fibrillation were not significantly more common for members in MAP (1.4% versus 1.3%)) and C-SNP (1.9% versus 2.1%). These findings suggest that a home visit program, such as HouseCalls, is a promising avenue to address the hidden disease burden and unmet care needs in the Medicare population.

Clinical home visit programs for Medicare beneficiaries are a promising approach to supporting aging in place and avoiding high-cost institutional care. Such programs combine a comprehensive geriatric assessment by a clinician during a home visit with referrals to community providers and health plan resources to address uncovered issues. We evaluated UnitedHealth Group's HouseCalls program, which has been offered to Medicare Advantage plan members in Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas since January 2008. We found that, compared to non-HouseCalls Medicare Advantage plan members and fee-for-service beneficiaries, HouseCalls participants had reductions in admissions to hospitals (1 percent and 14 percent, respectively) and lower risk of nursing home admission (0.67 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). In addition, participants' numbers of office visits--chiefly to specialists--increased 2-6 percent (depending on the comparison group). The program's effects on emergency department use were mixed. These results indicate that a thorough home-based clinical assessment of a member's health and home environment combined with referral services can support aging in place, promote physician office visits, and preempt costly institutional care., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)