Search

OBJECTIVE: To determine if surgery and anesthesia in the elderly may promote Alzheimer’s 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% CI 0.94, 0.98), P < 0.0001, (28.2% in Appendectomy versus 29.1% in controls, at 7.5 years). The HR for death was 0.97 (0.95, 0.99), P = 0.002, (22.7% versus 23.1% at 7.5 years). The HR for developing ADRD alone was 0.89 (0.86, 0.92), P < 0.0001, (7.6% in Appendectomy versus 8.6% in controls, at 7.5 years). No subgroup analyses found significantly elevated rates of ADRD in the Appendectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this natural experiment involving 329,976 elderly patients, exposure to appendectomy surgery and anesthesia did not increase the subsequent rate of ADRD.

To examine factors associated with racial inequities in discharge location, skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization, and readmissions.A 20% sample of longitudinal Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018.We present layered target matching, a method for studying sources of inequities. Layered target matching examines a fixed target population profile representing any race, ethnicity, or vulnerable population, sequentially adjusting for sets of characteristics that may contribute to inequities these groups endure. We use the method to study racial inequities in post-acute care use and readmissions.We studied Black and non-Hispanic White fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66+ admitted to short-term acute-care hospitals for qualifying diagnoses or procedures between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2018.Admitted Black patients tended to be younger, had significantly higher rates of risk factors such as diabetes, stroke, or renal disease, and were much more frequently admitted to large or academic hospitals. Relative to demographically similar White patients, Black patients were significantly more likely to be discharged to SNFs (21.8% vs. 19.3%, difference = 2.5%, p 0.0001) and to receive any SNF care within 30 days of discharge (25.3% vs. 22.4%, difference = 2.9%, p 0.0001). Black patients were also significantly more likely to experience 30-day readmission (18.7% vs. 14.5%, difference = 4.2%, p 0.0001). Differences in reasons for hospitalization and risk factors explained most of the differences in discharge location, post-acute care use, and readmission rates, while additional adjustment for differences in hospital characteristics and complications made little difference for any of the measures studied.We found significant Black-White differences in discharge to SNFs, SNF utilization, and readmission rates. Using layered target matching, we found that differences in risk factors and reasons for hospitalization explained most of these differences, while differences in hospitals did not materially impact the differences.

OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA In 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied. METHODS We studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors. RESULTS Traditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049]. CONCLUSIONS Duty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.

To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics.Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear.A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery.In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%,0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals.Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.

Cardinality matching is a computational method for finding the largest possible number of matched pairs of exposed and unexposed individuals from an observational dataset, with specified patterns of baseline characteristics that represent a target population for analysis. This article explains the process of cardinality matching and how it simultaneously addresses the concerns of balance, sample size, and representativeness of matched samples in observational studies.

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

BackgroundThere are known clinical benefits associated with investments in nursing. Less is known about their value.AimsTo compare surgical patient outcomes and costs in hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources and to determine if value differs across these hospitals for patients with different mortality risks.MethodsRetrospective matched-cohort design of patient outcomes at hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources, defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses and nurse work environments. The sample included 62 715 pairs of surgical patients in 76 better nursing resourced hospitals and 230 worse nursing resourced hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Patients were exactly matched on principal procedures and their hospital’s size category, teaching and technology status, and were closely matched on comorbidities and other risk factors.ResultsPatients in hospitals with better nursing resources had lower 30-day mortality: 2.7% vs 3.1% (pConclusionHospitals with better nursing resources provided better clinical outcomes for surgical patients at a small additional cost. Generally, the sicker the patient, the greater the value at better nursing resourced hospitals.

Background Organs from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected deceased donors are often discarded. Preliminary data from 2 small trials, including THINKER-1 (Transplanting Hepatitis C kidneys Into Negative KidnEy Recipients), suggested that HCV-infected kidneys could be safely transplanted into HCV-negative patients. However, intermediate-term data on quality of life and renal function are needed to counsel patients about risk. Objective To describe 12-month HCV treatment outcomes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and quality of life for the 10 kidney recipients in THINKER-1 and 6-month data on 10 additional recipients. Design Open-label, nonrandomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02743897). Setting Single center. Participants 20 HCV-negative transplant candidates. Intervention Participants underwent transplant with kidneys infected with genotype 1 HCV and received elbasvir-grazoprevir on posttransplant day 3. Measurements The primary outcome was HCV cure. Exploratory outcomes included 1) RAND-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) quality-of-life scores at enrollment and after transplant, and 2) posttransplant renal function, which was compared in a 1:5 matched sample with recipients of HCV-negative kidneys. Results The mean age of THINKER participants was 56.3 years (SD, 6.7), 70% were male, and 40% were black. All 20 participants achieved HCV cure. Hepatic and renal complications were transient or were successfully managed. Mean PCS and MCS quality-of-life scores decreased at 4 weeks; PCS scores then increased above pretransplant values, whereas MCS scores returned to baseline values. Estimated GFRs were similar between THINKER participants and matched recipients of HCV-negative kidneys at 6 months (median, 67.5 vs. 66.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI for between-group difference, -4.2 to 7.5 mL/min/1.73 m2) and 12 months (median, 72.8 vs. 67.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; CI for between-group difference, -7.2 to 9.8 mL/min/1.73 m2). Limitation Small trial. Conclusion Twenty HCV-negative recipients of HCV-infected kidneys experienced HCV cure, good quality of life, and excellent renal function. Kidneys from HCV-infected donors may be a valuable transplant resource. Primary funding source Merck.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous definitions of multimorbidity. None systematically examines specific comorbidity combinations accounting for multiple testing when exploring large datasets. OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a list of all single, double, and triple comorbidity combinations, with each individual Qualifying Comorbidity Set (QCS) at least doubling the odds of mortality versus its reference population. Patients with at least one QCS were defined as having multimorbidity. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort-based study with a matching validation study. SUBJECTS: All fee-for-service Medicare patients between age 65 and 85 without dementia or metastatic solid tumors undergoing general surgery in 2009–2010, and an additional 2011–2013 dataset. MEASURES: 30-day all-location mortality RESULTS: There were 576 qualifying comorbidity sets (2 singles, 63 doubles and 511 triples), each set at least doubling the odds of dying. In 2011, 36% of eligible patients had multimorbidity. As a group, multimorbid patients (mortality rate = 7.0%) had a mortality Mantel-Haenszel OR = 1.90 (1.77, 2.04) versus a reference that included both multimorbid and non-multimorbid patients (mortality rate = 3.3%), and Mantel-Haenszel OR = 3.72 (3.51, 3.94) versus only non-multimorbid patients (mortality rate = 1.6%). When matching 3,151 pairs of multimorbid patients from low-volume hospitals to similar patients in high-volume hospitals, the mortality rates were 6.7% versus 5.2%, respectively (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A list of QCSs identified a third of older patients undergoing general surgery that had greatly elevated mortality. These sets can be used to identify vulnerable patients and the specific combinations of comorbidities that make them susceptible to poor outcomes.

BACKGROUND Failure-to-rescue (FTR), originally developed to study quality of care in surgery, measures an institution's ability to prevent death after a patient becomes complicated. OBJECTIVES Develop an FTR metric modified to analyze acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN Split-sample design: a random 20% of hospitals to develop FTR definitions, a second 20% to validate test characteristics, and an out-of-sample 60% to validate results. SUBJECTS Older Medicare beneficiaries admitted to short-term acute-care hospitals for AMI between 2009 and 2011. MEASURES Thirty-day mortality and FTR rates, and in-hospital complication rates. RESULTS The 60% out-of-sample validation included 234,277 patients across 1142 hospitals that admitted at least 50 patients over 2.5 years. In total, 72.1% of patients were defined as Medically Complicated (complex on admission or subsequently developed a complication or died without a recorded complication) of whom 19.3% died. Spearman r between hospital risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and FTR was 0.89 (P

ObjectiveTo determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity.BackgroundAlthough prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood.MethodsA nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined.ResultsIn total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics. DESIGN: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios

POLICY POINTS: Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience poorer survival rates after diagnosis of breast cancer, even when enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the difference in survival is due to more advanced cancer on presentation and the general poor health of lower SES patients, while only a very small fraction of the SES disparity is due to differences in cancer treatment. Even when comparing only low‐ versus not‐low‐SES whites (without confounding by race) the survival disparity between disparate white SES populations is very large and is associated with lower use of preventive care, despite having insurance. CONTEXT: Disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES) exist despite the “safety net” programs Medicare and Medicaid. What is less clear is the extent to which SES disparities affect various racial and ethnic groups and whether causes differ across populations. METHODS: We conducted a tapered matching study comparing 1,890 low‐SES (LSES) non‐Hispanic white, 1,824 black, and 723 Hispanic white women to 60,307 not‐low‐SES (NLSES) non‐Hispanic white women, all in Medicare and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2010 in 17 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions. LSES Medicare patients were Medicaid dual‐eligible and resided in neighborhoods with both high poverty and low education. NLSES Medicare patients had none of these factors. Measurements: 5‐year and median survival. FINDINGS: LSES non‐Hispanic white patients were diagnosed with more stage IV disease (6.6% vs 3.6%; p < 0.0001), larger tumors (24.6 mm vs 20.2 mm; p < 0.0001), and more chronic diseases such as diabetes (37.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001) than NLSES non‐Hispanic white patients. Disparity in 5‐year survival (NLSES − LSES) was 13.7% (p < 0.0001) when matched for age, year, and SEER site (a 42‐month difference in median survival). Additionally, matching 55 presentation factors, including stage, reduced the disparity to 4.9% (p = 0.0012), but further matching on treatments yielded little further change in disparity: 4.6% (p = 0.0014). Survival disparities among LSES blacks and Hispanics, also versus NLSES whites, were significantly associated with presentation factors, though black patients also displayed disparities related to initial treatment. Before being diagnosed, all LSES populations used significantly less preventive care services than matched NLSES controls. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare, SES disparities in breast cancer survival were large (even among non‐Hispanic whites) and predominantly related to differences of presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than differences in treatment. Preventive care was less frequent in LSES patients, which may help explain disparities at presentation.

BACKGROUND Racial disparities in general surgical outcomes are known to exist but not well understood. OBJECTIVES To determine if black-white disparities in general surgery mortality for Medicare patients are attributable to poorer health status among blacks on admission or differences in the quality of care provided by the admitting hospitals. RESEARCH DESIGN Matched cohort study using Tapered Multivariate Matching. SUBJECTS All black elderly Medicare general surgical patients (N=18,861) and white-matched controls within the same 6 states or within the same 838 hospitals. MEASURES Thirty-day mortality (primary); others include in-hospital mortality, failure-to-rescue, complications, length of stay, and readmissions. RESULTS Matching on age, sex, year, state, and the exact same procedure, blacks had higher 30-day mortality (4.0% vs. 3.5%, P

Kidney transplant recipients often receive antibody induction. Previous studies of induction therapy were often limited by short follow-up and/or absence of information about complications. After linking Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data with Medicare claims, we compared outcomes between three induction therapies for kidney recipients. Using novel matching techniques developed on the basis of 15 clinical and demographic characteristics, we generated 1:1 pairs of alemtuzumab-rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) (5330 pairs) and basiliximab-rATG (9378 pairs) recipients. We used paired Cox regression to analyze the primary outcomes of death and death or allograft failure. Secondary outcomes included death or sepsis, death or lymphoma, death or melanoma, and healthcare resource utilization within 1 year. Compared with rATG recipients, alemtuzumab recipients had higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03 to 1.26; P

The literature suggests that hospitals with better nursing work environments provide better quality of care. Less is known about value (cost vs quality).To test whether hospitals with better nursing work environments displayed better value than those with worse nursing environments and to determine patient risk groups associated with the greatest value.A retrospective matched-cohort design, comparing the outcomes and cost of patients at focal hospitals recognized nationally as having good nurse working environments and nurse-to-bed ratios of 1 or greater with patients at control group hospitals without such recognition and with nurse-to-bed ratios less than 1. This study included 25 752 elderly Medicare general surgery patients treated at focal hospitals and 62 882 patients treated at control hospitals during 2004-2006 in Illinois, New York, and Texas. The study was conducted between January 1, 2004, and November 30, 2006; this analysis was conducted from April to August 2015.Focal vs control hospitals (better vs worse nursing environment).Thirty-day mortality and costs reflecting resource utilization.This study was conducted at 35 focal hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 1.51) and 293 control hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 0.69). Focal hospitals were larger and more teaching and technology intensive than control hospitals. Thirty-day mortality in focal hospitals was 4.8% vs 5.8% in control hospitals (P .001), while the cost per patient was similar: the focal-control was -$163 (95% CI = -$542 to $215; P = .40), suggesting better value in the focal group. For the focal vs control hospitals, the greatest mortality benefit (17.3% vs 19.9%; P .001) occurred in patients in the highest risk quintile, with a nonsignificant cost difference of $941 per patient ($53 701 vs $52 760; P = .25). The greatest difference in value between focal and control hospitals appeared in patients in the second-highest risk quintile, with mortality of 4.2% vs 5.8% (P .001), with a nonsignificant cost difference of -$862 ($33 513 vs $34 375; P = .12).Hospitals with better nursing environments and above-average staffing levels were associated with better value (lower mortality with similar costs) compared with hospitals without nursing environment recognition and with below-average staffing, especially for higher-risk patients. These results do not suggest that improving any specific hospital's nursing environment will necessarily improve its value, but they do show that patients undergoing general surgery at hospitals with better nursing environments generally receive care of higher value.

BACKGROUND Differences in colon cancer survival by race are a recognized problem among Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE To determine to what extent the racial disparity in survival is due to disparity in presentation characteristics at diagnosis or disparity in subsequent treatment. DESIGN Black patients with colon cancer were matched with 3 groups of white patients: a "demographic characteristics" match controlling for age, sex, diagnosis year, and Survey, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) site; a "presentation" match controlling for demographic characteristics plus comorbid conditions and tumor characteristics, including stage and grade; and a "treatment" match, including presentation variables plus details of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. SETTING 16 U.S. SEER sites. PATIENTS 7677 black patients aged 65 years or older diagnosed between 1991 and 2005 in the SEER-Medicare database and 3 sets of 7677 matched white patients, followed until 31 December 2009. MEASUREMENTS 5-year survival. RESULTS The absolute difference in 5-year survival between black and white patients was 9.9% (95% CI, 8.3% to 11.4%; P

Difference in breast cancer survival by race is a recognized problem among Medicare beneficiaries.To determine if racial disparity in breast cancer survival is primarily attributable to differences in presentation characteristics at diagnosis or subsequent treatment.Comparison of 7375 black women 65 years and older diagnosed between 1991 to 2005 and 3 sets of 7375 matched white control patients selected from 99,898 white potential controls, using data for 16 US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) sites in the SEER-Medicare database. All patients received follow-up through December 31, 2009, and the black case patients were matched to 3 white control populations on demographics (age, year of diagnosis, and SEER site), presentation (demographics variables plus patient comorbid conditions and tumor characteristics such as stage, size, grade, and estrogen receptor status), and treatment (presentation variables plus details of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy).5-Year survival.The absolute difference in 5-year survival (blacks, 55.9%; whites, 68.8%) was 12.9% (95% CI, 11.5%-14.5%; P .001) in the demographics match. This difference remained unchanged between 1991 and 2005. After matching on presentation characteristics, the absolute difference in 5-year survival was 4.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-5.8%; P .001) and was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.9%; P .001) lower for blacks than for whites matched also on treatment. In the presentation match, fewer blacks received treatment (87.4% vs 91.8%; P .001), time from diagnosis to treatment was longer (29.2 vs 22.8 days; P .001), use of anthracyclines and taxols was lower (3.7% vs 5.0%; P .001), and breast-conserving surgery without other treatment was more frequent (8.2% vs 7.3%; P = .04). Nevertheless, differences in survival associated with treatment differences accounted for only 0.81% of the 12.9% survival difference.In the SEER-Medicare database, differences in breast cancer survival between black and white women did not substantially change among women diagnosed between 1991 and 2005. These differences in survival appear primarily related to presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than treatment differences.

6000 Background: Reducing racial disparities in breast cancer survival has been a federal priority since the early 1990’s. We present a new method to assess disparities using sequential multivariate matching. We ask if racial disparities have increased or decreased over time and if so, what were potential reasons for such changes. Methods: We studied all women over 65 years of age in the Medicare fee for service system diagnosed with breast cancer between 1991 and 2005 who were treated in one of 12 SEER sites (the sites in SEER since 1991). There were 5,251 black patients (74% early stage (I-III), 9% late stage (IV) and 17% missing stage) and 72,695 white patients (81% early stage, 5% late stage and 14% missing stage). All black cases represented the focal group for all matches. Using multivariate matching and the propensity score, white controls were matched to blacks in steps: (1) White controls matched to black cases on age and year of diagnosis; (2) Age, year of diagnosis, and stage; (3): Age, year, stage, estrogen receptor status, grade, and 30 comorbidities. We then compare 5-year survival in the Pre and Post-Taxane periods (1991-1998, 1999-2005). Results: When whites were matched to blacks on age and diagnosis year, 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 69.2% vs. 56.7%, P < 0.0001. Matching additionally on stage, differences = 64.1% vs. 56.7%, P < 0.0001; Matching further on tumor characteristics and 30 comorbidities, the disparity reduced to 61.6% vs. 56.7%, P < 0.0001. Comparing trends over time, white-black differences in survival matched for age and year were 67.6% vs. 55.2% (P < 0.0001) in the pre-Taxane era (difference = 12.4%) and 71.2% vs. 58.7% (P < 0.0001) in the post Taxane era (difference = 12.5%); age and year matched paired racial differences were not different across eras (P = 0.389). Conclusions: While there may have been some improvements in overall survival, racial disparities in breast cancer survival have not improved, despite important policy initiatives and treatment advances. Adjusting for presentation at diagnosis does reduce differences in survival, but even these differences remain large and significant, suggesting that differences in both presentation and treatment given presentation are contributing to this disparity.