Health affairs scholar最新文献

We investigated unfair treatment among 1863 Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees from 21 MA plans using 2022 survey data (40% response rate) in which respondents indicated whether they were treated unfairly in a health care setting based on any of 10 personal characteristics. We calculated reported unfair treatment rates overall and by enrollee characteristics. Nine percent of respondents reported any unfair treatment, most often based on health condition (6%), disability (3%), or age (2%). Approximately 40% of those reporting any unfair treatment endorsed multiple categories. People who qualified for Medicare via disability reported unfair treatment by disability, age, income, race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender/gender identity more often than those who qualified via age. Enrollees dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid or eligible for a Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS) reported unfair treatment by disability, income, language/accent, race and ethnicity, culture/religion, and sex more often than non-DE/LIS enrollees. Compared with White respondents, racial and ethnic minority respondents more often reported unfair treatment by race and ethnicity, language/accent, culture/religion, and income. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report unfair treatment based on age and sex.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are blood-based tests designed to screen for signals of multiple cancers. There is growing interest and investment in examining the potential benefits and applications of MCED tests. If MCED tests are shown to have clinical utility, it is important to ensure that all people-regardless of their demographic or socioeconomic background-equitably benefit from these tests. Unfortunately, with health care innovation, such considerations are often ignored until after inequities emerge. We urge for-profit companies, scientists, clinicians, payers, and government agencies to prioritize equity now-when MCEDs are still being developed and researched. In an effort to avoid creating and exacerbating cancer inequities, we propose 9 equity considerations for MCEDs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all US states enacted stay-at-home orders, upending usual childcare arrangements and providing a unique opportunity to study the association between childcare disruptions and maternal health. Using data from the 2021-2022 National Survey of Children's Health, we estimated the association between childcare disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and self-reported mental and physical health among female parents of young children (ages 0-5 years). Further, we assessed racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in (1) the prevalence of childcare disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) the association between childcare disruptions and mental or physical health. Female parents who experienced childcare disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic were less likely to report excellent or very good mental (-7.4 percentage points) or physical (-2.5 percentage points) health. Further, childcare disruptions were more common among parents with greater socioeconomic privilege (ie, higher education, higher income), but may have been more detrimental to health among parents with less socioeconomic privilege (eg, lower education, lower income, and single parents). As state and federal policymakers take action to address the maternal health crisis in the United States, our findings suggest that measures to improve childcare stability may also promote maternal health and health equity.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on public comments submitted in response to proposed national coverage determinations to assist the agency in determining the coverage of items and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In a cross-sectional study, we characterized the cited evidence and what funding supported the cited evidence submitted in public comments to CMS for all therapeutic medical device national coverage determinations finalized between June 2019 and June 2022. Of 681 public comments, 159 (23%) cited at least 1 identifiable published scientific journal article. Within these 159 public comments, 198 unique articles were cited, 170 (86%) of which included funding statements or author disclosures. Among these, 96 (56%) disclosed funding from manufacturers that would benefit from Medicare coverage and/or were written by author(s) who received funding from these manufacturers. In summary, most public commenters for national coverage determinations did not cite published scientific journal articles to support their positions. Among those who did, more than half of articles were directly funded by manufacturers that would benefit from coverage. Greater funding of independent, non-industry-supported research may help provide unbiased evaluations of benefits and harms to support Medicare coverage decisions.