Search

Background: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access.Questions/purposes: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs?Methods: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC.Results: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements.Conclusion: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective.Level Of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region., Objective: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region., Design: A matched cohort study PARTICIPANTS: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals., Main Measures: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality., Key Results: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality., Limitations: The study used claims-based data., Conclusions: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To compare general surgery outcomes at flagship systems, flagship hospitals, and flagship hospital affiliates versus matched controls., Summary Background Data: It is unknown whether flagship hospitals perform better than flagship hospital affiliates for surgical patients., Methods: Using Medicare claims for 2018 to 2019, we matched patients undergoing inpatient general surgery in flagship system hospitals to controls who underwent the same procedure at hospitals outside the system but within the same region. We defined a "flagship hospital" within each region as the major teaching hospital with the highest patient volume that is also part of a hospital system; its system was labeled a "flagship system." We performed 4 main comparisons: patients treated at any flagship system hospital versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospitals versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospital affiliates versus hospitals outside the flagship system; and flagship hospitals versus affiliate hospitals. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality., Results: We formed 32,228 closely matched pairs across 35 regions. Patients at flagship system hospitals (32,228 pairs) had lower 30-day mortality than matched control patients [3.79% vs. 4.36%, difference=-0.57% (-0.86%, -0.28%), P<0.001]. Similarly, patients at flagship hospitals (15,571/32,228 pairs) had lower mortality than control patients. However, patients at flagship hospital affiliates (16,657/32,228 pairs) had similar mortality to matched controls. Flagship hospitals had lower mortality than affiliate hospitals [difference-in-differences=-1.05% (-1.62%, -0.47%), P<0.001]., Conclusions: Patients treated at flagship hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than those treated at flagship hospital affiliates. Hence, flagship system affiliation does not alone imply better surgical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In surgical patients, it is well known that higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes. To our knowledge, this volume-outcome association has not been studied in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in the US., Objective: To determine if low-volume ASCs have a higher rate of revisits after surgery, particularly among patients with multimorbidity., Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched case-control study used Medicare claims data and analyzed surgeries performed during 2018 and 2019 at ASCs. The study examined 2328 ASCs performing common ambulatory procedures and analyzed 4751 patients with a revisit within 7 days of surgery (defined to be either 1 of 4735 revisits or 1 of 16 deaths without a revisit). These cases were each closely matched to 5 control patients without revisits (23 755 controls). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Seven-day revisit in patients (cases) compared with the matched patients without the outcome (controls) in ASCs with low volume (less than 50 procedures over 2 years) vs higher volume (50 or more procedures)., Results: Patients at a low-volume ASC had a higher odds of a 7-day revisit vs patients who had their surgery at a higher-volume ASC (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36; P = .001). The odds of revisit for patients with multimorbidity were higher at low-volume ASCs when compared with higher-volume ASCs (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27-1.94; P < .001). Among patients with multimorbidity in low-volume ASCs, for those who underwent orthopedic procedures, the odds of revisit were 84% higher (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.36-2.50; P < .001) vs higher-volume centers, and for those who underwent general surgery or other procedures, the odds of revisit were 36% higher (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83; P = .05) vs a higher-volume center. The findings were not statistically significant for patients without multimorbidity., Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study, the surgical volume of an ASC was an important indicator of patient outcomes. Older patients with multimorbidity should discuss with their surgeon the optimal location of their care.

This article aims to perform a comparative systematic review of regulations in veterinary medicine between the years 2016 to 2023. It explores the complex web of veterinary medicine regulations in various agencies and the nations, including USA (United States of America), EU (European Union), UK (United Kingdom), Japan, Australia, and India. Current article provides the comparative study on the veterinary regulations of different countries, including acts, directives, and drug approval processes. Such as, the specific legislation is needed to address zoonotic diseases. The strategic and regulated stockpiling of the veterinary drugs especially in chronic veterinary disease outbreak. It is essential to develop the dedicated Veterinary Pharmacopoeia for the regulated standardization of the raw materials as well as the formulations. Veterinary medical device is a field which is highly unregulated. There is a need to have regulations for the same. It is important to have dedicated veterinary pharmacovigilance centers which help in improving quality of medications to the livestock farms. After comparing the regulations of different countries. We observed that there is the absence of the zoonotic diseases and pharma stockpiling in every country. There is also an absence of the dedicated veterinary pharmacopoeia in every country. USA and Australia have the veterinary medical device regulation which is not there in other countries. Around the globe only Australia has the dedicated pharmacovigilance center. Including these recommendations into regulatory framework enhances the quality and safety of veterinary medicine. The current article adds a valuable resource for policymakers, veterinarians, and stakeholders in the field of animal health care., 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. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The term "multimorbidity" identifies high-risk, complex patients and is conventionally defined as ≥2 comorbidities. However, this labels almost all older patients as multimorbid, making this definition less useful for physicians, hospitals, and policymakers., Objective: Develop new medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia patients. We developed three medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions as the presence of single, double, or triple combinations of comorbidities - called Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs) - associated with at least doubling the risk of 30-day mortality for AMI and pneumonia, or one-and-a-half times for HF patients, compared to typical patients with these conditions., Design: Cohort-based matching study PARTICIPANTS: One hundred percent Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with inpatient admissions between 2016 and 2019 for AMI, HF, and pneumonia., Main Measures: Thirty-day all-location mortality KEY RESULTS: We defined multimorbidity as the presence of ≥1 QCS. The new definitions labeled fewer patients as multimorbid with a much higher risk of death compared to the conventional definition (≥2 comorbidities). The proportions of patients labeled as multimorbid using the new definition versus the conventional definition were: for AMI 47% versus 87% (p value<0.0001), HF 53% versus 98% (p value<0.0001), and pneumonia 57% versus 91% (p value<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher among patients with ≥1 QCS compared to ≥2 comorbidities: for AMI 15.0% versus 9.5% (p<0.0001), HF 9.9% versus 7.0% (p <0.0001), and pneumonia 18.4% versus 13.2% (p <0.0001)., Conclusion: The presence of ≥2 comorbidities identified almost all patients as multimorbid. In contrast, our new QCS-based definitions selected more specific combinations of comorbidities associated with substantial excess risk in older patients admitted for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Thus, our new definitions offer a better approach to identifying multimorbid patients, allowing physicians, hospitals, and policymakers to more effectively use such information to consider focused interventions for these vulnerable patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Multimorbidity in surgery is common and associated with worse postoperative outcomes. However, conventional multimorbidity definitions (≥2 comorbidities) label the vast majority of older patients as multimorbid, limiting clinical usefulness. We sought to develop and validate better surgical specialty-specific multimorbidity definitions based on distinct comorbidity combinations., Study Design: We used Medicare claims for patients aged 66 to 90 years undergoing inpatient general, orthopaedic, or vascular surgery. Using 2016 to 2017 data, we identified all comorbidity combinations associated with at least 2-fold (general/orthopaedic) or 1.5-fold (vascular) greater risk of 30-day mortality compared with the overall population undergoing the same procedure; we called these combinations qualifying comorbidity sets. We applied them to 2018 to 2019 data (general = 230,410 patients, orthopaedic = 778,131 patients, vascular = 146,570 patients) to obtain 30-day mortality estimates. For further validation, we tested whether multimorbidity status was associated with differential outcomes for patients at better-resourced (based on nursing skill-mix, surgical volume, teaching status) hospitals vs all other hospitals using multivariate matching., Results: Compared with conventional multimorbidity definitions, the new definitions labeled far fewer patients as multimorbid: general = 85.0% (conventional) vs 55.9% (new) (p < 0.0001); orthopaedic = 66.6% vs 40.2% (p < 0.0001); and vascular = 96.2% vs 52.7% (p < 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher by the new definitions: general = 3.96% (conventional) vs 5.64% (new) (p < 0.0001); orthopaedic = 0.13% vs 1.68% (p < 0.0001); and vascular = 4.43% vs 7.00% (p < 0.0001). Better-resourced hospitals offered significantly larger mortality benefits than all other hospitals for multimorbid vs nonmultimorbid general and orthopaedic, but not vascular, patients (general surgery difference-in-difference = -0.94% [-1.36%, -0.52%], p < 0.0001; orthopaedic = -0.20% [-0.34%, -0.05%], p = 0.0087; and vascular = -0.12% [-0.69%, 0.45%], p = 0.6795)., Conclusions: Our new multimorbidity definitions identified far more specific, higher-risk pools of patients than conventional definitions, potentially aiding clinical decision-making., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgery for older Americans is increasingly being performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) rather than hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), while rates of multimorbidity have increased., Objective: To determine whether there are differential outcomes in older patients undergoing surgical procedures at ASCs versus HOPDs., Research Design: Matched cohort study., Subjects: Of Medicare patients, 30,958 were treated in 2018 and 2019 at an ASC undergoing herniorrhaphy, cholecystectomy, or open breast procedures, matched to similar HOPD patients, and another 32,702 matched pairs undergoing higher-risk procedures., Measures: Seven and 30-day revisit and complication rates., Results: For the same procedures, HOPD patients displayed a higher baseline predicted risk of 30-day revisits than ASC patients (13.09% vs 8.47%, P < 0.0001), suggesting the presence of considerable selection on the part of surgeons. In matched Medicare patients with or without multimorbidity, we observed worse outcomes in HOPD patients: 30-day revisit rates were 8.1% in HOPD patients versus 6.2% in ASC patients ( P < 0.0001), and complication rates were 41.3% versus 28.8%, P < 0.0001. Similar patterns were also found for 7-day outcomes and in higher-risk procedures examined in a secondary analysis. Similar patterns were also observed when analyzing patients with and without multimorbidity separately., Conclusions: The rates of revisits and complications for ASC patients were far lower than for closely matched HOPD patients. The observed initial baseline risk in HOPD patients was much higher than the baseline risk for the same procedures performed at the ASC, suggesting that surgeons are appropriately selecting their riskier patients to be treated at the HOPD rather than the ASC., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether surgery and anesthesia in the elderly may promote Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD)., Background: There is a substantial conflicting literature concerning the hypothesis that surgery and anesthesia promotes ADRD. Much of the literature is confounded by indications for surgery or has small sample size. This study examines elderly patients with appendicitis, a common condition that strikes mostly at random after controlling for some known associations., Methods: A matched natural experiment of patients undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis versus control patients without appendicitis using Medicare data from 2002 to 2017, examining 54,996 patients without previous diagnoses of ADRD, cognitive impairment, or neurological degeneration, who developed appendicitis between ages 68 through 77 years and underwent an appendectomy (the ''Appendectomy'' treated group), matching them 5:1 to 274,980 controls, examining the subsequent hazard for developing ADRD., Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ADRD or death was lower in the Appendectomy group than controls: HR = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], P < 0.0001, (28.2% in Appendectomy vs 29.1% in controls, at 7.5 years). The HR for death was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), P = 0.002, (22.7% vs 23.1% at 7.5 years). The HR for developing ADRD alone was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), P < 0.0001, (7.6% in Appendectomy vs 8.6% in controls, at 7.5 years). No subgroup analyses found significantly elevated rates of ADRD in the Appendectomy group., Conclusion: In this natural experiment involving 329,976 elderly patients, exposure to appendectomy surgery and anesthesia did not increase the subsequent rate of ADRD., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest ., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In recent years, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) have opened across the US. Uninsured patients may increasingly turn to these orthopedic-specific urgent care centers as a lower-cost alternative to emergency department or general urgent care center visits., Objective: To assess out-of-pocket costs and factors associated with these costs at MUCCs for uninsured and underinsured patients in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a national secret shopper survey was conducted in June 2019. Clinics identified as MUCCs in 50 states were contacted by telephone by investigators using a standardized script and posing as uninsured patients seeking information on the out-of-pocket charge for a new patient visit., Exposures: State Medicaid expansion status, clinic Medicaid acceptance status, state Medicaid reimbursement rate, median income per zip code, and clinic region., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was each clinic's out-of-pocket charge for a level 3 visit, defined as a new patient office visit requiring medical decision-making of low complexity. Linear regression was used to examine correlations of price with clinic policy against accepting Medicaid, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit., Results: Of 565 MUCCs identified, 558 MUCCs were able to be contacted (98.8%); 536 of the 558 MUCCs (96.1%) disclosed a new patient visit out-of-pocket charge. Of those, 313 (58.4%) accepted Medicaid insurance and 326 (60.8%) were located in states with expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The mean (SD) price of a visit to an MUCC was $250 ($110). Clinic policy against accepting Medicaid (β, 22.91; 95% CI, 12.57-33.25; P < .001), higher median income per zip code (β, 0.00056; 95% CI, 0.00020-0.00092; P = .003), and increased Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit (β, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.158-1.316; P = .01) were positively correlated with visit price. The overall regression was statistically significance (R2 = 0.084; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, MUCCs charged a mean price of $250 for a new patient visit. Medicaid acceptance policy, median income per zip code, and Medicaid reimbursement for a level 3 visit were associated with differences in out-of-pocket charges. These findings suggest that accessibility to orthopedic urgent care at MUCCs may be limited for underinsured and uninsured patients.

Background: Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear., Objective: To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources., Design: Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals., Patients: A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status., Main Measures: Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs., Key Results: Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost., Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Objective: Patients may call urgent care centers (UCCs) with urgent surgical conditions but may not be properly referred to a higher level of care. This study aims to characterize how UCCs manage Medicaid and privately insured patients who present with an emergent condition., Methods: Using a standardized script, we called 1245 randomly selected UCCs in 50 states on 2 occasions. Investigators posed as either a Medicaid or a privately-insured patient with symptoms of an incarcerated inguinal hernia. Rates of direct emergency department (ED) referral were compared between insurance types., Results: A total of 1223 (98.2%) UCCs accepted private insurance and 981 (78.8%) accepted Medicaid. At the 971 (78.0%) UCCs that accepted both insurance types, direct-to-ED referral rates for private and Medicaid patients were 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely than private patients to be referred to the ED [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.60]. Private patients who were triaged by a clinician compared to nonclinician staff were over 6 times more likely to be referred to the ED (OR 6.46, 95% CI 4.63-9.01). Medicaid patients were nearly 9 times more likely to have an ED referral when triaged by a clinician (OR 8.72, 95% CI 6.19-12.29)., Conclusions: Only one-third of UCCs across the United States referred an apparent emergent surgical case to the ED, potentially delaying care. Medicaid patients were more likely to be referred directly to the ED versus privately insured patients. All patients triaged by clinicians were significantly more likely to be referred to the ED; however, the disparity between private and Medicaid patients remained.

While rapid and accessible diagnosis is paramount to monitoring and reducing the spread of disease, COVID-19 testing capabilities across the U.S. remain constrained. For many individuals, urgent care centers (UCCs) may offer the most accessible avenue to be tested. Through a phone survey, we describe the COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs and provide a snapshot highlighting the limited COVID-19 testing capabilities at UCCs in states with the greatest disease burden., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Hsiang W et al.)