Journal of General Internal Medicine最新文献

Background: Virtual interviewing for residency provides considerable savings. Its impact on match outcomes remains unclear.

Objective: Evaluate the impact of virtual residency recruitment on program and applicant assessment and match outcomes.

Design: Cross-sectional survey, September 2020-July 2021 PARTICIPANTS: Faculty interviewers and 2019 and 2020 PGY-1 classes at three academic internal medicine residencies.

Main measures: Survey items rating effectiveness of interview format, preference for future interview format, and perceived impact on diversity.

Key results: A total of 247/436 faculty (57%) interviewers responded. Faculty perceived that in-person interviews enhanced applicant assessment (3.23 ± 0.38, p < 0.01) and recruitment of the most qualified applicants (p < 0.01) but did not impact recruitment of a racially or gender diverse class (3.03 ± 0.99, p = 0.95 and 3.09 ± 0.76, p = 0.14 respectively). They also did not demonstrate a preference for future interview formats. A total of 259/364 matched applicants responded, corresponding to a 76% response rate in the in-person cohort and a 66% response rate for virtual. Trainees were equally likely to match at their top choice when interviewing virtually vs. in-person (p = 0.56), and racial/ethnic and gender composition of the incoming class also did not differ (p = 0.81 and p = 0.19 respectively). Trainees perceived many aspects of the institution were better assessed in-person, though the impact varied according to assessment domain. Trainees who interviewed in-person preferred in-person formats. Of those who interviewed virtually, 47% preferred virtual and 54% preferred in-person. There were no predictors of virtual preference for future interview formats.

Conclusions: Faculty and applicants who experienced virtual recruitment had no preference for future recruitment format. Virtual recruitment had no impact on the racial/gender diversity of matched classes or on applicants matching at their top-ranked institution. Institutions should consider the potential non-inferiority of virtual interviews with financial and other benefits when making decisions about future interview formats.

Background: Minority racial and ethnic populations have the highest prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus but lower use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1ra), novel medications that reduce morbidity and mortality. Observed disparities may be due to differences in insurance coverage, which have variable cost-sharing, prior authorization, and formulary restrictions that influence medication access.

Objective: To assess whether racial/ethnic differences in SGLT2i and GLP1ra use differ by payer.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis of 2018 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data.

Participants: Adults ≥ 18 years old with diabetes.

Main measures: We defined insurance as private, Medicare, or Medicaid using ≥ 7 months of coverage in the calendar year. We defined race/ethnicity as White (non-Hispanic) vs non-White (including Hispanic). The primary outcome was use of ≥ 1 SGLT2i or GLP1ra medication. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the interaction between payer and race/ethnicity adjusted for cardiovascular, socioeconomic, and healthcare access factors.

Key results: We included 4997 adults, representing 24.8 million US adults annually with diabetes (mean age 63.6 years, 48.8% female, 38.8% non-White; 33.5% private insurance, 56.8% Medicare, 9.8% Medicaid). In our fully adjusted model, White individuals with private insurance had significantly more medication use versus non-White individuals (16.1% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001), which was similar for Medicare beneficiaries but more attenuated (14.7% vs 11.0%, p = 0.04). Medication rates were similar among Medicaid beneficiaries (10.0% vs 9.0%, p = 0.74).

Conclusions: Racial/ethnic disparities in novel diabetes medications were the largest among those with private insurance. There was no disparity among Medicaid enrollees, but overall prescription rates were the lowest. Given that disparities vary considerably by payer, differences in insurance coverage may account for the observed disparities in SGLT2i and GLP1ra use. Future studies are needed to assess racial/ethnic differences in novel diabetes use by insurance formulary restrictions and out-of-pocket cost-sharing.

Background: High prevalence of depression or anxiety with opioid use for chronic pain complicates co-management and may influence prescribing behaviors.

Objective: Compare clinical effectiveness of electronic medical record clinical decision support (EMR-CDS) versus additional behavioral health (BH) care management for reducing rates of high-dose opioid prescriptions.

Design: Type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 35 primary care clinics within a health system in LA, USA.

Participants: Patients aged 18+ receiving chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain with depression or anxiety and matched controls.

Intervention: EMR-CDS included opioid risk mitigation procedures. BH care included cognitive behavioral therapy; depression or anxiety medication adjustments; and case management.

Main measures: Outcomes of interest included difference-in-difference (DID) estimate of changes in probability for prescribing high-dose morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD ≥50 mg/day and MEDD ≥90), average MEDD, and rates of hospitalization, emergency department use, and opioid risk mitigation.

Key results: Most participants were female with 3+ pain syndromes. Data analysis included 632 patients. Absolute risk differences for MEDD≥50 and ≥90 decreased post-index compared to pre-index (DID of absolute risk difference [95%CI]: -0.036 [-0.089, 0.016] and -0.029 [-0.060, 0.002], respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The average MEDD decreased at a higher rate for the BH group compared to EMR-CDS only (DID rate ratio [95%CI]: 0.85 [0.77, 0.93]). There were no changes in hospitalization and emergency department utilization. The BH group had higher probabilities of new specialty referrals and prescriptions for naloxone and antidepressants.

Conclusions: Incorporation of a multidisciplinary behavioral health care team into primary care did not decrease high-dose prescribing; however, it improved adherence to clinical guideline recommendations for managing chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03889418.

Ensuring an adequate supply of physicians is paramount in securing the future of healthcare. To do so, accurate physician workforce predictions are needed to inform policymakers. However, the United States lacks such predictions from reliable sources. Several non-governmental organizations have actively been involved in attempting to quantify workforce needs, but they often employ opaque methodologies and are deeply conflicted, leading to potentially unreliable or biased results. Moreover, while federal and state entities invest approximately $15 billion annually in graduate medical education (GME) payments, they have very little control over how the funding is used to shape the future physician workforce. In this article, we review physician workforce predictions from both an international and a domestic perspective and finally discuss how the creation of an apolitical, data-driven, expert-led panel at the federal level with sufficient authority to influence broader workforce policy is the optimal solution for ensuring an adequate supply of physicians for generations to come.

Background: States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients.

Objective: To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies.

Design and participants: A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common.

Exposures: State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management.

Main measures: Opioid dispensing rates, days' supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED).

Key results: The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days' supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days' supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively.

Conclusion: While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days' supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people from structurally vulnerable communities. There was a need to improve COVID-19 testing in these communities to reduce viral spread and connect to treatment.

Objective: We created a partnership between an academic medical center and three community-based organizations (CBOs) to offer low-barrier COVID-19 walk-up testing clinics in Portland, Maine. Our objective was to examine whether the co-created testing clinics reached structurally vulnerable populations.

Design: The clinics offered COVID-19 rapid antigen tests three times a week outside CBO sites from January 2022 to May 2023. Clinic staff administered a brief survey on reason for testing and then instructed participants on how to self-swab. While staff processed the test, participants were invited to complete an additional survey about their demographics and testing perceptions.

Participants: Adults seeking COVID-19 testing with specific outreach to people who are unhoused, immigrants, and low-income and/or uninsured.

Main measures: Number of tests conducted and result, reasons for testing, and testing perceptions.

Key results: Of 246 completed tests, 18 were positive for COVID-19 (7%). Participants sought testing for a variety of reasons, including symptoms (60%), close contact exposure (29%), and/or need for a negative test result to access services or an activity (33%). Overall, people primarily tested due to symptoms with only 7% testing due to close contact exposure alone. The clinics reached vulnerable populations. Among the 130 people completing the participant survey, 39% were unhoused, 22% spoke a language other than English at home, 23% were uninsured, and 46% earned less than $20,000 in 2019. Qualitative field notes captured key elements of clinics that influenced reach, and how this collaboration with CBOs helped build trust with our target populations.

Conclusions: Providing low-barrier walk-up clinics partnering with trusted CBOs was observed to be helpful in reaching structurally vulnerable populations for COVID-19 testing.

Background: Although there is increased demand for behavioral health services, there is limited national data on the workforce prescribing psychotropics and/or medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and many current estimates are based on self-reported data or clinician rosters.

Objective: To describe trends in the workforce prescribing psychotropics (i.e., antidepressants, antipsychotics, antianxiety medications, mood stabilizers) and/or MOUD from 2017 to 2021.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis of 2017-2021 IQVIA Xponent retail prescription claims data.

Participants: Clinicians who prescribed more than ten total prescriptions for psychotropics and/or MOUD in a calendar year.

Main measures: We analyzed the number of prescriptions and prescribers by year, month, drug type, specialty type, payor type, and clinician county rurality.

Key results: There was a 2.7% increase in the number of prescribers between 2017 and 2021, with the highest growth among psychiatric nurse practitioners (44.7%), nurse practitioners (25.5%), and physician assistants (6.5%). Primary care physicians (PCPs) and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) made up more than half of the workforce but prescribed 3.5 times fewer prescriptions on average compared to psychiatric and addiction medicine specialists. PCPs and APCs in rural areas wrote the most prescriptions collectively for psychotropics and MOUD per month.

Conclusions: Using prescription data, a proxy for being active in the workforce, goes beyond specialty designation to identify the full workforce prescribing psychotropics and MOUD, including the growing role of APCs and PCPs.