Search

Background: Lack of health insurance is a public health crisis, leading to foregone care and financial strain. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE) is a hospital-based emergency Medicaid program that provides temporary (up to 60 d) coverage, with the goal that hospitals will assist patients in applying for ongoing Medicaid coverage. It is unclear whether HPE is associated with successful longer-term Medicaid enrollment., Objective: To characterize Medicaid enrollment 6 months after initiation of HPE and determine sociodemographic, clinical, and geographic factors associated with Medicaid enrollment., Design: This was a cohort study of all HPE approved inpatients in California, using claims data from the California Department of Healthcare Services., Setting: The study was conducted across all HPE-participating hospitals within California between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017., Participants: We studied California adult hospitalized inpatients, who were uninsured at the time of hospitalization and approved for HPE emergency Medicaid. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we compared HPE-approved patients who enrolled in Medicaid by 6 months versus those who did not., Exposures: HPE emergency Medicaid approval at the time of hospitalization., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was full-scope Medicaid enrollment by 6 months after the hospital's presumptive eligibility approval., Results: Among 71,335 inpatient HPE recipients, a total of 45,817 (64.2%) enrolled in Medicaid by 6 months. There was variability in Medicaid enrollment across counties in California (33%-100%). In adjusted analyses, Spanish-preferred-language patients were less likely to enroll in Medicaid (aOR 0.77, P <0.001). Surgical intervention (aOR 1.10, P <0.001) and discharge to another inpatient facility or a long-term care facility increased the odds of Medicaid enrollment (vs. routine discharge home: aOR 2.24 and aOR 1.96, P <0.001)., Conclusion: California patients who enroll in HPE often enroll in Medicaid coverage by 6 months, particularly among patients requiring surgical intervention, repeated health care visits, and ongoing access to care. Future opportunities include prospective evaluation of HPE recipients to understand the impact that Medicaid enrollment has on health care utilization and financial solvency., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite positive outcomes associated with specialist palliative care (PC) in diverse medical populations, little research has investigated specialist PC in surgical ones. Although cancer surgery is predominantly safe, operations can be extensive and unpredictable perioperative morbidity and mortality persist, particularly for patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Objectives and Hypotheses: Our objective is to complete a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing surgeon-PC co-management with surgeon-alone management among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for upper GI cancers. We hypothesize that perioperative PC will improve patient postsurgical quality of life. This study and design are based on >8 years of engagement and research with patients, family members, and clinicians surrounding major cancer surgery and advance care planning/PC for surgical patients. Methods: Randomized controlled superiority trial with two study arms (surgeon-PC team co-management and surgeon-alone management) and five data collection points over six months. The principal investigator and analysts are blinded to randomization. Setting: Four, geographically diverse, academic tertiary care hospitals. Data collection began December 20, 2018 and continues to December 2020. Participants: Patients recruited from surgical oncology clinics who are undergoing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer. Interventions: In the intervention arm, patients receive care from both their surgical team and a specialist PC team; the PC is provided before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at least monthly until three months postsurgery. Patients randomized to the usual care arm receive care from only the surgical team. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: patient quality of life. Secondary outcomes: patient: symptom experience, spiritual distress, prognostic awareness, health care utilization, and mortality. Caregiver: quality of life, caregiver burden, spiritual distress, and prognostic awareness. Intent-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the institutional review boards of all study sites and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03611309, First received: August 2, 2018).

Background: Level I trauma centers often exist within safety-net hospitals (SNHs), facilities servicing high proportions of low-income and uninsured patients. Given the current health care funding environment, trauma centers within SNHs may be at particular risk. Using California as a model, we hypothesized that SNHs with trauma centers vary in terms of financial stability., Study Design: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from publicly available financial disclosure reports from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Safety-net hospitals were identified from the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. The primary outcomes metric for financial performance was operating margin., Results: California hospitals with Level I trauma centers were analyzed (11 SNH sites, 2 non SNH). The SNHs did not behave uniformly, and were clustered into county-owned SNHs (36%, n = 4) and nonprofit-owned SNHs (64%, n = 7). Mean operating margins for county SNHs, nonprofit SNHs, and non SNHs were -16.5%, 8.4%, and 9.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). From 2010 to 2015, operating margins improved for all hospitals, partly due to increases in the percent of insured patients and changes in payer mix. Nonprofit SNHs had a payer mix similar to that of non SNHs; county SNHs had the highest proportions of MediCal (California Medicaid) (45% vs 36% vs 12%, respectively, p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (17% vs 5% vs 0%, respectively, p < 0.001) compared with nonprofit SNHs and non SNHs, respectively., Conclusions: The majority (85%) of Level I trauma centers are within SNHs, whose financial stability is highly variable. A group of SNHs rely on infusions of government funds and are therefore susceptible to changes in policy. These findings suggest deliberate funding efforts are critical to protect the health of the US academic trauma system., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)