Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Inpatient and Outpatient Utilization of Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, deferral of inpatient elective surgical procedures served as a primary mechanism to increase surge inpatient capacity. Given the benefit of bariatric surgery on treating obesity and associated comorbidities, decreased access to bariatric surgery may have long-term public health consequences. Understanding the extent of the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic to bariatric surgery will help health systems plan for appropriate access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cohort study using the PINC AI Healthcare Database from 1/1/2019-6/31/2021. A Poisson regression model with patient characteristics and hospital-fixed effects was used to assess the relative monthly within-hospital reduction in surgical encounters, variations by race and ethnicity, and shift from inpatient to outpatient procedures. A multivariate linear probability model was used to assess the change in 30-day readmissions from 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019. RESULTS: Among 309 hospitals, there were 46,539 bariatric procedures conducted in 2019 with a 14.8% reduction in volume to 39,641 procedures in 2020. There were 22,642 bariatric procedures observed from January to June of 2021. The most pronounced decrease in volume occurred in April with an 89.7% relative reduction from 2019. Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive bariatric surgery after the height of the pandemic compared to white patients. A clinically significant shift from inpatient to outpatient bariatric surgical procedures was not observed. Relative to 2019, there were no significant differences in bariatric surgical readmission rates. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic there was a sizable decrease in bariatric surgical volume. There did not appear to be disparities in access to bariatric surgery for minority patients. We did not observe a meaningful shift toward outpatient bariatric surgical procedures. Post-pandemic, monitoring is needed to assess if hospitals have been able to meet the demand for bariatric surgical procedures.

Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Use and Spending Before and After Introduction of the Public Health Emergency Waiver During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare introduced a public health emergency (PHE) waiver in March 2020, removing a 3-day hospitalization requirement before fee-for-service beneficiaries could receive skilled nursing facility (SNF) care benefits. Objective: To assess whether there were changes in SNF episode volume and Medicare spending on SNF care before and during the PHE among long-term care (LTC) residents and other Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims and the Minimum Data Set for Medicare beneficiaries who were reimbursed for SNF care episodes from January 2018 to September 2021 in US SNFs. Exposures: The prepandemic period (January 2018-February 2020) vs the PHE period (March 2020-September 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were SNF episode volume, characteristics, and costs. Episodes were defined as standard (with a preceding 3-day hospitalization) or waiver (with other or no acute care use). Results: Skilled nursing facility care was provided to 4 299 863 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries had on average 130 400 monthly SNF episodes in the prepandemic period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 78.9 [11.0] years; 59% female) and 108 575 monthly episodes in the PHE period (mean [SD] age of beneficiaries, 79.0 [11.1] years; 59% female). All waiver episodes increased from 6% to 32%, and waiver episodes without preceding acute care increased from 3% to 18% (from 4% to 49% among LTC residents). Skilled nursing facility episodes provided for LTC residents increased by 77% (from 15 538 to 27 537 monthly episodes), primarily due to waiver episodes provided for residents with COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021 (62% of waiver episodes without preceding acute care). Skilled nursing facilities in the top quartile of waiver episodes were more often for-profit (80% vs 68%) and had lower quality ratings (mean [SD] overall star rating, 2.7 [1.4] vs 3.2 [1.4]; mean [SD] staffing star rating, 2.5 [1.1] vs 3.0 [1.2]) compared with SNFs in the other quartiles. Monthly Medicare spending on SNF care was $2.1 billion before the pandemic and $2.0 billion during the PHE. For LTC residents, monthly SNF spending increased from $301 million to $585 million while spending on hospitalizations remained relatively stable. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the PHE waiver for SNF care was associated with a marked increase in the prevalence of SNF episodes without a preceding hospitalization, especially in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The waiver was used primarily among certain types of facilities and for LTC residents with COVID-19. Although the effect of the waiver cannot be differentiated from that of the pandemic, overall SNF care costs did not increase substantially; for LTC residents, the waiver was applied primarily for COVID-19 care, suggesting the waiver's successful implementation.

Care Disruption During COVID-19: a National Survey of Hospital Leaders.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused massive disruption in usual care delivery patterns in hospitals across the USA, and highlighted long-standing inequities in health care delivery and outcomes. Its effect on hospital operations, and whether the magnitude of the effect differed for hospitals serving historically marginalized populations, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspectives of hospital leaders on the effects of COVID-19 on their facilities' operations and patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was administered via print and electronic means to hospital leaders at 588 randomly sampled acute-care hospitals participating in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, fielded from November 2020 to June 2021. Summary statistics were tabulated, and responses were adjusted for sampling strategy and non-response. RESULTS: There were 203 responses to the survey (41.6%), with 20.7% of respondents representing safety-net hospitals and 19.7% representing high-minority hospitals. Over three-quarters of hospitals reported COVID testing shortages, about two-thirds reported staffing shortages, and 78.8% repurposed hospital spaces to intensive care units, with a slightly higher proportion of high-minority hospitals reporting these effects. About half of respondents felt that non-COVID inpatients received worsened quality or outcomes during peak COVID surges, and almost two-thirds reported worsened quality or outcomes for outpatient non-COVID patients as well, with few differences by hospital safety-net or minority status. Over 80% of hospitals participated in alternative payment models prior to COVID, and a third of these reported decreasing these efforts due to the pandemic, with no differences between safety-net and high-minority hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 significantly disrupted the operations of hospitals across the USA, with hospitals serving patients in poverty and racial and ethnic minorities reporting relatively similar care disruption as non-safety-net and lower-minority hospitals.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Being Offered or Choosing Telephone vs Video Virtual Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: After the rapid expansion of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is debate about the role and reimbursement of telephone vs video visits. Missing is an understanding of what type of virtual visits clinicians may offer or patients may choose when given the option. Objective: To evaluate characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries associated with practices and clinicians offering telephone visits only and patients receiving telephone visits only, when both telephone and video were available. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used 2019-2020 nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of medical care who attended a practice offering telemedicine. Data were analyzed from May 3 to August 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify patient sociodemographic (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational level, income, English proficiency, housing type, and number living at home), clinical (dementia, mental illness, self-rated health, hearing impairment, and vision impairment), and technology (technology access and prior use of video visits) factors associated with respondents' report of (1) practices offering telephone virtual visits only, (2) being offered telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were available, and (3) receiving telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were offered. Results: Of 4691 respondents (representing 27 887 642 Medicare beneficiaries; mean [SD] age, 71.3[8.1] years; 55.0% female) reporting that their practice offered telemedicine, 1234 (23.3% weighted) reported that their practices offered telephone virtual visits only; factors associated with being in a practice offering telephone only included older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.10-2.39] for those aged ≥85 years vs 18-64 years), male sex (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.64]), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.03-1.95]), lower income (aOR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.43-2.49] for those with income ≤100% vs >200% of the federal poverty level), poor self-rated health (aOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]), and less technology access (aOR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.61-2.60] for those with low vs high access). Of the 1593 patients in practices offering both video and telephone visits, 297 (16.7% weighted) were themselves offered telephone visits only; factors associated with being offered telephone only included Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.13-3.41]), limited English proficiency (aOR, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.28-7.31]), and less technology access (aOR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.00-2.81] for those with low vs high access). Finally, of the 711 respondents who were themselves offered both video and telephone visits, 304 (43.1% weighted) had a telephone visit; factors associated with receiving telephone visits only were older age (aOR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.21-5.92] for those aged 75-84 years vs 18-64 years) and less technology access (aOR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.12-6.25] for those with moderate vs high access]). Among those who used video calls in other settings and were offered a choice, 122 (28.5%, weighted) chose telephone visits. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of Medicare beneficiaries, respondents often reported being offered or choosing telephone visits even when video visits were available. Study findings suggest that policy makers and clinical leaders should support the use of telephone visits to the extent that telephone is appropriate, while addressing both practice-level and patient-level barriers to video visits.

Assessment of Strategies Used in US Hospitals to Address Social Needs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This survey study uses 2020 American Hospital Association data to assess strategies of US hospitals serving vulnerable populations in addressing social needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Comparison of Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Little is known about changes in obstetric outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess whether obstetric outcomes and pregnancy-related complications changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included pregnant patients receiving care at 463 US hospitals whose information appeared in the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The relative differences in birth outcomes, pregnancy-related complications, and length of stay (LOS) during the pandemic period (March 1, 2020, to April 31, 2021) were compared with the prepandemic period (January 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020) using logistic and Poisson models, adjusting for patients' characteristics, and comorbidities and with month and hospital fixed effects. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 primary outcomes were the relative change in preterm vs term births, mortality outcomes, and mode of delivery. Secondary outcomes included the relative change in pregnancy-related complications and LOS. Results: There were 849 544 and 805 324 pregnant patients in the prepandemic and COVID-19 pandemic periods, respectively, and there were no significant differences in patient characteristics between periods, including age (≥35 years: 153 606 [18.1%] vs 148 274 [18.4%]), race and ethnicity (eg, Hispanic patients: 145 475 [47.1%] vs 143 905 [17.9%]; White patients: 456 014 [53.7%] vs 433 668 [53.9%]), insurance type (Medicaid: 366 233 [43.1%] vs 346 331 [43.0%]), and comorbidities (all standardized mean differences <0.10). There was a 5.2% decrease in live births during the pandemic. Maternal death during delivery hospitalization increased from 5.17 to 8.69 deaths per 100 000 pregnant patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.58). There were minimal changes in mode of delivery (vaginal: OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.996-1.02; primary cesarean: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; vaginal birth after cesarean: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; repeated cesarean: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97). LOS during delivery hospitalization decreased by 7% (rate ratio, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.928-0.933). Lastly, the adjusted odds of gestational hypertension (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11), obstetric hemorrhage (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10), preeclampsia (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), and preexisting chronic hypertension (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09) increased. No significant changes in preexisting racial and ethnic disparities were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were increased odds of maternal death during delivery hospitalization, cardiovascular disorders, and obstetric hemorrhage. Further efforts are needed to ensure risks potentially associated with the COVID-19 pandemic do not persist beyond the current state of the pandemic.

Changes in Employment Status and Access to Care During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Low-Income Adults in 4 Southern States.

BACKGROUND: While the impact of the COVID-19 recession on the economy is clear, there is limited evidence on how the COVID-19 pandemic-related job losses among low-income people may have affected their access to health care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of job loss during the pandemic with insurance coverage and access to and affordability of health care among low-income adults. DESIGN: Using a random digit dialing telephone survey from October 2020 to December 2020 of low-income adults in 4 states-Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas-we conducted a series of multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for demographics, chronic conditions, and state of residence. PARTICIPANTS: US citizens aged 19-64 with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line who became newly unemployed during pandemic, remained employed during pandemic, or were chronically unemployed before and during the pandemic. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of insurance, type of insurance coverage, measures of access to/affordability of care, and food/housing security KEY RESULTS: Of 1,794 respondents, 14.5% were newly unemployed, 49.6% were chronically unemployed, and 35.7% were employed. The newly unemployed were slightly younger and more likely Black or Latino. The newly unemployed were more likely to report uninsurance compared to the employed (+16.4 percentage points, 95% CI 6.0-26.9), and the chronically unemployed (+26.4 percentage points, 95% CI 16.2-36.6), mostly driven by Texas' populations. The newly unemployed also reported lower rates of access to care and higher rates of financial barriers to care. They were also more likely to report food and housing insecurity compared to others. CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of 4 Southern States during pandemic, the newly unemployed had higher rates of uninsurance and worse access to care-largely due to financial barriers-and reported more housing and food insecurity than other groups. Our study highlights the vulnerability of low-income populations who experienced a job loss, especially in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.

Marketplace Health Insurance Ratings: Most Potential Enrollees Have Access To Plans Of Medium Or High Quality.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plays a critical role in providing affordable health insurance for the nongroup market, yet the accessibility of plans from insurers with high quality ratings has not been investigated. Our analysis of recently released insurer quality star ratings for plan year 2020 found substantial variation in access to high rated plans in the federally facilitated ACA Marketplace. In most participating counties (1,390 of 2,265, or 61.4 percent), the highest-rated ACA Marketplace insurer had a three-star rating. Fewer than one-third of counties (703, or 31.0 percent) had access to four- or five-star-rated insurers. Fewer than 10 percent (172, or 7.6 percent) had access to only one- or two-star-rated insurers. In plan-based analyses, each one-point increase in star rating was associated with a $28 increase in the average monthly plan premium. Counties with the highest proportion of residents obtaining individual coverage through the ACA Marketplace and counties with more insurers were the most likely to have access to plans from high-rated insurers. We found no systematic racial or ethnic disparities in access to plans from high-rated insurers. Policy makers should continue to monitor the quality of available health plans.

Variation in Use of Surgical Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Surgical Urgency and Race and Ethnicity

Key Points Question To what extent did the COVID-19 pandemic reduce access to surgical care, and were racial and ethnic minority groups more likely to have reduced access to surgical care? Findings In this cohort study of more than 13 million inpatient and outpatient surgical encounters in 767 US hospitals in a hospital administrative database, surgical use was 13% lower in 2020 compared with 2019, with the greatest decrease concentrated in elective surgical procedures. While Black and Hispanic patients experienced a reduction in surgical encounters, White patients experienced the greatest reduction in surgical encounters. Meaning Despite severe and persistent disruptions to health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic, racial and ethnic minority groups did not experience a disproportionate decrease in access to surgical care. Importance The extent of the disruption to surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been empirically characterized on a national level. Objective To characterize the use of surgical care across cohorts of surgical urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess for racial and ethnic disparities. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective observational study using the geographically diverse, all payer data from 767 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. Procedures were categorized into 4 cohorts of surgical urgency (elective, nonelective, emergency, and trauma). A generalized linear regression model with hospital-fixed effects assessed the relative monthly within-hospital reduction in surgical encounters in 2020 compared with 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes were the monthly relative reduction in overall surgical encounters and across surgical urgency cohorts and race and ethnicity. Results The sample included 13 175 087 inpatient and outpatient surgical encounters. There was a 12.6% relative reduction in surgical use in 2020 compared to 2019. Across all surgical cohorts, the most prominent decreases in encounters occurred during Spring 2020 . For example, elective encounters began falling in March, reached a trough in April, and subsequently recovered but never to prepandemic levels (March: −26.8%;95% CI, −29.6% to −23.9%;April: −74.6%;95% CI, −75.5% to −73.5%;December: −13.3%;95% CI, −16.6%, −9.8%). Across all operative surgical urgency cohorts, White patients had the largest relative reduction in encounters. Conclusions and Relevance As shown by this cohort study, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large disruptions to surgical care across all categories of operative urgency, especially elective procedures. Racial and ethnic minority groups experienced less of a disruption to surgical care than White patients. Further research is needed to explore whether the decreased surgical use among White patients was owing to patient discretion and to document whether demand for surgical care will rebound to baseline levels. This cohort study examines the use of surgical care across cohorts of surgical urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic and assesses whether there are racial or ethnic disparities in care.

Variation in Use of Surgical Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic by Surgical Urgency and Race and Ethnicity.

Importance: The extent of the disruption to surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic has not been empirically characterized on a national level. Objective: To characterize the use of surgical care across cohorts of surgical urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess for racial and ethnic disparities. Design Setting and Participants: This was a retrospective observational study using the geographically diverse, all payer data from 767 hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. Procedures were categorized into 4 cohorts of surgical urgency (elective, nonelective, emergency, and trauma). A generalized linear regression model with hospital-fixed effects assessed the relative monthly within-hospital reduction in surgical encounters in 2020 compared with 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were the monthly relative reduction in overall surgical encounters and across surgical urgency cohorts and race and ethnicity. Results: The sample included 13 175 087 inpatient and outpatient surgical encounters. There was a 12.6% relative reduction in surgical use in 2020 compared to 2019. Across all surgical cohorts, the most prominent decreases in encounters occurred during Spring 2020 . For example, elective encounters began falling in March, reached a trough in April, and subsequently recovered but never to prepandemic levels (March: -26.8%; 95% CI, -29.6% to -23.9%; April: -74.6%; 95% CI, -75.5% to -73.5%; December: -13.3%; 95% CI, -16.6%, -9.8%). Across all operative surgical urgency cohorts, White patients had the largest relative reduction in encounters. Conclusions and Relevance: As shown by this cohort study, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large disruptions to surgical care across all categories of operative urgency, especially elective procedures. Racial and ethnic minority groups experienced less of a disruption to surgical care than White patients. Further research is needed to explore whether the decreased surgical use among White patients was owing to patient discretion and to document whether demand for surgical care will rebound to baseline levels.

Association of community-level social vulnerability with US acute care hospital intensive care unit capacity during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented stress on US acute care hospitals, leading to overburdened ICUs. It remains unknown if increased COVID-19 ICU occupancy is crowding out non-COVID-related care and whether hospitals in vulnerable communities may be more susceptible to ICUs reaching capacity. Using facility-level hospitalization data, we conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of 1753 US acute care hospitals reporting to the US Department of Health and Human Services Protect database from September 4, 2020 to February 25, 2021. 63% of hospitals reached critical ICU capacity for at least two weeks during the study period, and the surge of COVID-19 cases appeared to be crowding out non-COVID-19-related intensive care needs. Hospitals in the South (OR = 3.31, 95% CI OR 2.31-4.78) and West (OR = 2.28, 95% CI OR 1.51-3.46) were more likely to reach critical capacity than those in the Northeast, and hospitals in areas with the highest social vulnerability were more than twice as likely to reach capacity as those in the least vulnerable areas (OR = 2.15, 95% CI OR 1.41-3.29). The association between social vulnerability and critical ICU capacity highlights underlying structural inequities in health care access and provides an opportunity for policymakers to take action to prevent strained ICU capacity from compounding COVID-19 inequities.

COVID-19-Related Insurance Coverage Changes and Disparities in Access to Care Among Low-Income US Adults in 4 Southern States.

Importance: It is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated economic downturn have affected insurance coverage and disparities in access to health care among low-income families and people of color in states that have and have not expanded Medicaid. Objective: To determine changes in insurance coverage and disparities in access to health care among low-income families and people of color across 4 Southern states and by Medicaid expansion status. Design Setting and Participants: This random-digit dialing telephone survey study of US citizens ages 19 to 64 years with a family income less than 138% of the federal poverty line in in 4 states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas) was conducted from October to December 2020. Using a difference-in-differences design, we estimated changes in outcomes by Medicaid expansion status overall and by race and ethnicity in 2020 (n = 1804) compared with 2018 to 2019 (n = 5710). We also explored barriers to health care and use of telehealth by race and ethnicity. Data analysis was conducted from January 2021 to March 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 pandemic and prior Medicaid expansion status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the uninsured rate and secondary outcomes were financial and nonfinancial barriers to health care access. Results: Of 7514 respondents (11% response rate; 3889 White non-Latinx [51.8%], 1881 Black non-Latinx [25.0%], and 1156 Latinx individuals [15.4%]; 4161 women [55.4%]), 5815 (77.4%) were in the states with previous expansion and 1699 (22.6%) were in Texas (nonexpansion state). Respondents in the expansion states were older, more likely White, and less likely to have attended college compared with respondents in Texas. Uninsurance rate in 2020 rose by 7.4 percentage points in Texas (95% CI, 2.2-12.6; P = .01) and 2.5 percentage points in expansion states (95% CI, -1.9 to 7.0; P = .27), with a difference-in-differences estimate for Medicaid expansion of -4.9% (95% CI, -11.3 to 1.6; P = .14). Among Black and Latinx individuals, Medicaid expansion was associated with protection against a rise in the uninsured rate (difference-in-differences, -9.5%; 95% CI, -19.0 to -0.1; P = .048). Measures of access, including having a personal physician and regular care for chronic conditions, worsened significantly in 2020 in all 4 states, with no significant difference by Medicaid expansion status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of US adults, uninsured rates increased among low-income adults in 4 Southern states during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Medicaid expansion states, that association was diminished among Black and Latinx individuals. Nonfinancial barriers to care because of the pandemic were common in all states.

Association of Social Vulnerability, COVID-19 vaccine site density, and vaccination rates in the United States.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted Americans in socially vulnerable areas. Unfortunately, these groups are also experiencing lower vaccination rates. To understand how strategic vaccine site placement may benefit high vulnerability populations, we extracted vaccine site locations for 26 U.S. states and linked these data to county-level adult vaccination rates and the CDC 2018 Social Vulnerability Index rankings. We fit quasi-Poisson regression models to compare vaccine site density between the highest and lowest SVI domain quartiles, and assessed whether greater vaccine site density mediated or modified the relationship between social vulnerability and vaccination rates. We found that high vulnerability counties by socioeconomic status had more vaccine sites per 10,000 residents, yet this higher vaccine site density did not reduce socioeconomic disparities in vaccination rates. Persistent vaccination inequities may reflect other structural barriers to access. Our results suggest that targeted vaccine site placement in high vulnerability counties may be necessary but insufficient for the goal of widespread, equitable vaccination.