Healthcare use and out-of-pocket costs for rural family caregivers and care recipients in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out-of-pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. METHODS: TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self-reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out-of-pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health-related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: The study included 282 FCG-CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow-up over the 6-month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0. 99). Total out-of-pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out-of-pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out-of-pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. CLINICALTRIALS: gov # is NCT03339271.

Quantifying Associations Between Child Health and Neighborhood Social Vulnerability: Does the Choice of Index Matter?

Importance: Policymakers have increasingly utilized place-based social disadvantage indices to quantify the impacts of place on health and inform equitable resource allocation. Indices vary in design, content, and purpose but are often used interchangeably, potentially resulting in differential assignments of relative disadvantage depending on index choice. Objective: To compare associations between three commonly used disadvantage indices (Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and Child Opportunity Index (COI)) and two epidemiologically distinct child health outcomes-infant well-child check (WCC) attendance and adolescent obesity. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of Duke University Health System electronic health record (EHR) data from January 2014 to December 2019. Participants: Children ≤18 years of age with outpatient encounters between January 2014 and December 2019, and who were Durham County residents were eligible. WCC attendance was assessed for infants ages 0-15 months; obesity was assessed for children ages 11-17 years. Exposures: 2014 Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and 2015 Child Opportunity Index (COI) 2.0. Main Outcomes: 1) Infant WCC attendance: attending less than the minimum recommended six WCCs in the first 15 months of life, and 2) Adolescent obesity: BMI ≥ the 95th percentile at both the most recent encounter and an encounter within the prior 9-36 months. Results: Of 10175 patients in the WCC cohort, 20% (n = 2073) had less than six WCCs. Of 14961 patients in the obesity cohort, 20% (n = 2933) had obesity. All three indices were associated with both WCCs (OR for SVI 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.12; OR for ADI 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.12; OR for COI 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.14) and obesity (OR for SVI 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.08; OR for ADI 1.08, 95% CI 1.06-1.10; OR for COI 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.08). Conclusions and relevance: Higher social disadvantage as defined by all three indices was similarly associated with both adolescent obesity and decreased infant WCC attendance. While the COI incorporates a broader set of child-specific variables, the SVI and ADI may often be just as suitable for pediatric research. Users should consider population and outcome characteristics when selecting an index.

United Kingdom aid cuts: implications for financing health systems.

Background: The United Kingdom (UK) used to be the second largest bilateral provider of official development assistance (ODA) for health. However, in 2021 the UK government cut its annual aid budget by 30%. We aim to understand how these cuts might affect financing for health systems in UK aid recipient countries. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of domestic and external funding for 134 countries that received UK aid for the 2019-2020 budget year. We grouped countries into two cohorts: those that continued to receive aid in 2020-2021 ("budget") and those that did not ("no budget"). Data was collected from publicly available datasets and we compared UK's ODA, UK's health ODA with total ODA, general government expenditures and domestic general government health expenditure to assess the donor dependency and donor concentration of budget and no budget countries. Findings: Budget countries are more reliant on external aid to finance their governments and health systems than no budget countries, with a handful of exceptions. While the UK does not appear to be a major ODA contributor among most no budget countries, it is in many budget countries. Two no budget countries in particular may be faced with health systems financing challenges given their high ratios of UK health aid to domestic government health expenditures: the Gambia (1.24:1) and Eritrea (0.33:1). Although "safe" for this budget cycle, a number of low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have very high ratios of UK health aid to domestic government health expenditures, including South Sudan (3.15:1), Sierra Leone (0.48:1), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (0.34:1). Interpretation: The 2021-2022 UK aid cuts could have negative impacts in a few countries highly dependent on UK health aid. Its departure could leave these countries with rather large funding gaps to fill and create a more concentrated donor climate.