@tamarabeetham@DrSarahWakeman@BrendanSaloner We did a “secret shopper” survey: 1,092 calls to 546 publicly-listed prescribers in WV, OH, MD, DC, MA and NH posing as people using heroin looking to restart buprenorphine.
Two calls to each prescriber – once as Medicaid-insured, once as uninsured/cash pay.
@tamarabeetham@DrSarahWakeman@BrendanSaloner Outcomes we tracked: 1) New patient acceptance 2) Possibility of getting buprenorphine at 1st visit without delay 3) Wait time to 1st appt 4) Cost of appt for uninsured
Depressing initial result – half of all calls using SAMHSA public listings were erroneous, no longer active, wrong clinical setting (e.g. emergency room)
New appointments:
- 46% of prescribers not accepting new Medicaid patients
- 38% not accepting new cash pay patients
Possible induction on 1st visit:
- 27% of contacts offered appointment with possible bupe at 1st visit for Medicaid
- 41% for uninsured/cash-pay
@tamarabeetham@DrSarahWakeman@BrendanSaloner Despite high rates of rejecting new appts, wait times were surprisingly short when we actually reached a clinic taking new patients:
Median wait time 5-6 days (!) among those offering appts
Variation at state level
- Biggest Medicaid/uninsured disparity in access in NH and OH
- MA had lowest rate of prescribers offering possible induction
Best appointment availability among NP/PAs, 275-waivered MDs
Lower availability in rural areas
@tamarabeetham@DrSarahWakeman@BrendanSaloner Takeaways 1) It takes a lot of phone calls to find someone who might actually offer an appointment 2) Maybe because it’s so difficult, wait times are short among those taking patients 3) Disparity in rapid induction between Medicaid/cash pay: Medicaid formulary barriers?
@tamarabeetham@DrSarahWakeman@BrendanSaloner Policy implications 1) Need interventions to better match pts to prescribers who are open 2) Maintaining an accurate online prescriber directory should not be not that hard, why don’t we do it? 3) Medicaid programs need to pay more/reduce barriers to close disparities in access
Especially for @tamarabeetham, who accomplished something remarkable leading this study while getting her MPH. Her effort got this work a best abstract award at #ARM19!!!!
After a high risk OUD event (OD or detox)
- White patients get buprenorphine 80% more often than Black pts
- This is not due to diffs in methadone or frequency of health care access
- Rates of rx opioids/benzos are HIGHER than bupe
TL;DR Nursing homes with higher use of COVID-19 tests for staff had 30% fewer resident cases and 26% fewer deaths than low testing facilities. That's a LOT.
/1
@McGarryBE@ashdgandhi@NEJM Why does this matter? In the early pandemic, we had no vaccines, no Paxlovid. Top priority - keeping COVID out of nursing homes by testing staff frequently. But a lot of nursing homes didn't.
We need to understand what this policy failure cost us.
/2
@McGarryBE@ashdgandhi@NEJM This is tricky to study because the best predictor of nursing homes testing more is a COVID outbreak.
We got around this by developing a "relative testing rate" for each home, based on how much it tested staff vs. other homes in the same county and week.
It's that time again - my list of 10 of the most thought-provoking, surprising, and rigorous studies in health care in 2022!
Themes this year: 1) Care delivery changes that work (and don't) 2) Race and health care 3) Natural experiments in the ED
+ a few misc. cool papers
Before we dive in - this list is
A) not comprehensive
B) not presented in any particular order
(I’m also focusing on papers written by folks outside my circle of colleagues/collaborators)
First up is a set of 4 studies on changes to care delivery or coverage.
#1: A lot of interventions that "feel" like they should work have not panned out.
A prime example is a very rigorous RCT to improve birth outcomes among Medicaid enrollees in SC published in @JAMA_current led by @maggiemcconnell + Kate Baicker
Here's my list of 12 papers in 2021 at the intersection of health care, medicine, economics and policy that surprised me, made me think, or were just damn clever.
I'm just going to focus on non-COVID-19 papers - we have enough of that other stuff in our feeds.
Off we go!
/1
Before we dive in - this is
A) definitely not comprehensive
B) definitely not in order of awesomeness
I’m also focusing on papers written by folks outside my direct circle of collaborators (w/ a couple of non-Harvard exceptions I can’t resist).
@NEJM@McGarryBE@ashdgandhi@DavidCGrabowski From June-Aug 2021, we compared resident and staff infection + mortality rates between 12,000 homes with the lowest staff vaccination rates (~30%) vs. highest (~80%).
In the least vaccinated homes:
+132% COVID cases in residents
+58% staff cases
+195% resident mortality
yikes
@NEJM@McGarryBE@ashdgandhi@DavidCGrabowski Over an 8 week period, if all nursing homes were magically raised to the highest staff vaccination levels nationally (~80%), we would have:
4,775 fewer resident cases
7,501 fewer staff cases
703 fewer resident deaths (nearly 50% of all deaths)