Publications by Year: 2022

BACKGROUND: Racial and social disparities exist in outcomes related to cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to study the impact of social vulnerability on mortality attributed to comorbid cancer and CVD.

METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database (2015-2019) was used to obtain county-level mortality data attributed to cancer, CVD, and comorbid cancer and CVD. County-level social vulnerability index (SVI) data (2014-2018) were obtained from the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. SVI percentiles were generated for each county and aggregated to form SVI quartiles. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) were estimated and compared across SVI quartiles to assess the impact of social vulnerability on mortality related to cancer, CVD, and comorbid cancer and CVD.

RESULTS: The AAMR for comorbid cancer and CVD was 47.75 (95% CI: 47.66-47.85) per 100,000 person-years, with higher mortality in counties with greater social vulnerability. AAMRs for cancer and CVD were also significantly greater in counties with the highest SVIs. However, the proportional increase in mortality between the highest and lowest SVI counties was greater for comorbid cancer and CVD than for either cancer or CVD alone. Adults <45 years of age, women, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics had the highest relative increase in comorbid cancer and CVD mortality between the fourth and first SVI quartiles, without significant urban-rural differences.

CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid cancer and CVD mortality increased in counties with higher social vulnerability. Improved education, resource allocation, and targeted public health interventions are needed to address inequities in cardio-oncology.

BACKGROUND: US policymakers are debating whether to expand the Medicare program by lowering the age of eligibility. The goal of this study was to determine the association of Medicare eligibility and enrollment with healthcare access, affordability, and financial strain from medical bills in a contemporary population of low- and higher-income adults in the US.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used cross-sectional data from the National Health Interview Survey (2019) to examine the association of Medicare eligibility and enrollment with outcomes by income status using a local randomization-based regression discontinuity approach. After weighting to account for survey sampling, the low-income group consisted of 1,660,188 adults age 64 years and 1,488,875 adults age 66 years, with similar baseline characteristics, including distribution of sex (59.2% versus 59.7% female) and education (10.8% versus 12.5% with bachelor's degree or higher). The higher-income group consisted of 2,110,995 adults age 64 years and 2,167,676 adults age 66 years, with similar distribution of baseline characteristics, including sex (40.0% versus 49.4% female) and education (41.0% versus 41.6%). The share of adults age 64 versus 66 years enrolled in Medicare differed within low-income (27.6% versus 87.8%, p < 0.001) and higher-income groups (8.0% versus 85.9%, p < 0.001). Medicare eligibility at 65 years was associated with a decreases in the percentage of low-income adults who delayed (14.7% to 6.2%; -8.5% [95% CI, -14.7%, -2.4%], P = 0.007) or avoided medical care (15.5% to 5.9%; -9.6% [-15.9%, -3.2%], P = 0.003) due to costs, and a larger decrease in the percentage who were worried about (66.5% to 51.1%; -15.4% [-25.4%, -5.4%], P = 0.003) or had problems (33.9% to 20.6%; -13.3% [-23.0%, -3.6%], P = 0.007) paying medical bills. In contrast, there were no significant associations between Medicare eligibility and measures of cost-related barriers to medication use. For higher-income adults, there was a large decrease in worrying about paying medical bills (40.5% to 27.5%; -13.0% [-21.4%, -4.5%], P = 0.003), a more modest decrease in avoiding medical care due to cost (3.5% to 0.6%; -2.9% [-5.3%, -0.5%], P = 0.02), and no significant association between eligibility and other measures of healthcare access and affordability. All estimates were stronger when examining the association of Medicare enrollment with outcomes for low and higher-income adults. Additional analyses that adjusted for clinical comorbidities and employment status were largely consistent with the main findings, as were analyses stratified by levels of educational attainment. Study limitations include the assumption adults age 64 and 66 would have similar outcomes if both groups were eligible for Medicare or if eligibility were withheld from both.

CONCLUSIONS: Medicare eligibility and enrollment at age 65 years were associated with improvements in healthcare access, affordability, and financial strain in low-income adults and, to a lesser extent, in higher-income adults. Our findings provide evidence that lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare may improve health inequities in the US.

Background The AHA Registry (American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry) captures detailed information on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The registry, however, does not capture information on social determinants of health or long-term outcomes. Here we describe the linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources, including fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims, to fill these gaps and assess the representativeness of linked registry patients to the broader Medicare FFS population hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results We linked AHA Registry records of adults ≥65 years from March 2020 to September 2021 with Medicare FFS claims using a deterministic linkage algorithm and with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Rural Urban Commuting Area codes, and the Social Vulnerability Index using hospital and geographic identifiers. We compared linked individuals with unlinked FFS beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19 to assess the representativeness of the AHA Registry. A total of 10 010 (47.0%) records in the AHA Registry were successfully linked to FFS Medicare claims. Linked and unlinked FFS beneficiaries were similar with respect to mean age (78.1 versus 77.9, absolute standardized difference [ASD] 0.03); female sex (48.3% versus 50.2%, ASD 0.04); Black race (15.1% versus 12.0%, ASD 0.09); dual-eligibility status (26.1% versus 23.2%, ASD 0.07); and comorbidity burden. Linked patients were more likely to live in the northeastern United States (35.7% versus 18.2%, ASD 0.40) and urban/metropolitan areas (83.9% versus 76.8%, ASD 0.18). There were also differences in hospital-level characteristics between cohorts. However, in-hospital outcomes were similar (mortality, 23.3% versus 20.1%, ASD 0.08; home discharge, 45.5% versus 50.7%, ASD 0.10; skilled nursing facility discharge, 24.4% versus 22.2%, ASD 0.05). Conclusions Linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources such as Medicare FFS claims creates a unique and generalizable resource to evaluate long-term health outcomes after COVID-19 hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage plans now provide health insurance coverage to >24 million older adults in the United States, and enrollment is increasing among individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Whether Medicare Advantage enrollment is associated with similar health care access, acute care utilization, and financial strain for adults with CVD compared with traditional Medicare is unknown.

METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with CVD using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association of Medicare program type (Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare) with measures of health care access, acute care utilization, and affordability.

RESULTS: The weighted population included 11 013 437 Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 3 922 104 (35.6%) were enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and 7 091 334 (64.4%) were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare enrollees were similar with respect to age, sex, racial/ethnic distribution, and household income; however, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to live in an urban setting (82.7% versus 76.0%; P=0.01) and to be college educated (24.2% versus 19.0%; P=0.01). Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to have a usual source of care (93.5% versus 88.9%; OR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.33-2.98)]; however, there were no other differences in health care access or utilization. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were more likely to have problems paying medical bills (16.5% versus 11.6%; OR, 1.68 [1.17-2.40]) and to worry about paying medical bills (40.1% versus 33.8%; OR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76]) compared with those enrolled in traditional Medicare.

CONCLUSIONS: Adults with CVD in Medicare Advantage were more likely to experience financial strain related to their medical bills compared with those in traditional Medicare. As enrollment in Medicare Advantage grows, policy efforts should focus on ensuring care is affordable for patients with CVD.