Association between Gaps in Care Coordination and Emergency Department Visits Among Children without Chronic Conditions or Special Needs.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies and have shown that gaps in care coordination (CC) increase the risk of emergency department (ED) visits among children with special healthcare needs. This study aims to determine if gaps in CC are associated with an increased risk of ED visits among children without special needs (non-CSHCN). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study using the National Survey of Children's Health (2018-2019), representing children up to age 17. A "gap" in CC occurs if the adult proxy reported dissatisfaction with communication between providers or difficulty getting the help needed to coordinate care for the child. Using logistic regression models adjusting for age and sex, we measured the association between a gap in CC and 1 or more ED visits during the past 12 months overall and stratified by any special needs. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2019, 15% of respondents reported a gap in CC and 19.4% of children had at least one ED visit. Among non-CSHCN, these rates were 11% and 17%. In this population, a gap in CC was independently associated with an increased odds of ED use (AOR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.82, 2.52). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Self-reported gaps in ambulatory CC were associated with increased odds of ED visits even among non-CSHCN children with minor illnesses, suggesting that providers need to be aware of potential pitfalls in CC for all children, and ensure that pertinent information is available where needed.

Ambulatory Care Fragmentation and Total Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the relationship between ambulatory care fragmentation and subsequent total health care costs is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between ambulatory care fragmentation and total health care costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of 15 years of data (2004-2018) from the national Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims. SUBJECTS: A total of 13,680 Medicare beneficiaries who are 65 years and older. MEASURES: We measured ambulatory care fragmentation in each calendar year, defining high fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index ≥0.85 and low as <0.85. We used generalized linear models to determine the association between ambulatory care fragmentation in 1 year and total Medicare expenditures (costs) in the following year, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, a time-varying comorbidity index, and accounting for geographic variation in reimbursement and inflation. RESULTS: The average participant was 70.9 years old; approximately half (53%) were women. One-fourth (26%) of participants had high fragmentation in the first year of observation. Those participants had a median of 9 visits to 6 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 29% of visits. By contrast, participants with low fragmentation had a median of 8 visits to 3 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 50% of visits. High fragmentation was associated with $1085 more in total adjusted costs per person per year (95% CI $713 to $1457) than low fragmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Highly fragmented ambulatory care in 1 year is independently associated with higher total costs the following year.

Care Fragmentation, Care Continuity, and Care Coordination-How They Differ and Why It Matters.

This Viewpoint considers why fragmentation occurs and suggests a potential path forward for developing evidenced-based strategies that can reduce the occurrence of fragmentation and its associated harms.

Building research capacity in primary care practices that serve predominantly racial and ethnic minority populations.

Primary care research represents only 1% of all federally funded projects. However, innovation in primary care is central to advancing health care delivery. Indeed, leaders in health care innovation recently called for primary care payment reform proposals to be tested in accountable care organizations (ACOs) consisting of independent practices (ie, practices not owned by hospitals). Yet these same practices may have less experience with the kind of systematic innovation that leads to generalizable insights, because what little funding is available for primary care research is mostly awarded to large academic medical centers. In this commentary, we report on lessons learned over 2 years (2020-2022) from conducting primary care research through a novel alliance of an ACO consisting of independent practices, a health plan, and several academic researchers, with the support of a private foundation. This collaboration is also notable because it was specifically assembled to address racial and ethnic inequities in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diabetes, gaps in care coordination, and preventable adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequency of self-reported gaps in care coordination and self-reported preventable adverse events among adults with vs without diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study participants 65 years and older who completed a survey on health care experiences in 2017-2018 (N = 5634). METHODS: We analyzed the association of diabetes with self-reported gaps in care coordination and with preventable adverse events. Gaps in care coordination were assessed using 8 validated questions. Four self-reported adverse events were studied (drug-drug interactions, repeat medical tests, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations). Respondents were asked if they thought these events could have been prevented with better communication among providers. RESULTS: Overall, 1724 (30.6%) participants had diabetes. Among participants with and without diabetes, 39.3% and 40.7%, respectively, reported any gap in care coordination. The adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) for any gap in care coordination for participants with vs without diabetes was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.89-1.06). Any preventable adverse event was reported by 12.9% and 8.7% of participants with and without diabetes, respectively. The aPR for any preventable adverse event for participants with vs without diabetes was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.00-1.49). Among participants with and without diabetes, the aPRs for any preventable adverse event associated with any gap in care coordination were 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.04) and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.21-1.88), respectively (P comparing aPRs = .922). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve quality of care for patients with diabetes could incorporate patient-reported gaps in care coordination to aid in preventing adverse events.

Home Health Care Workers' Interactions with Medical Providers, Home Care Agencies, and Family Members for Patients with Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Despite providing frequent care to heart failure (HF) patients, home health care workers (HHWs) are generally considered neither part of the health care team nor the family, and their clinical observations are often overlooked. To better understand this workforce's involvement in care, we quantified HHWs' scope of interactions with clinicians, health systems, and family caregivers. METHODS: Community-partnered cross-sectional survey of English- and Spanish-speaking HHWs who cared for a HF patient in the last year. The survey included 6 open-ended questions about aspects of care coordination, alongside demographic and employment characteristics. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-one HHWs employed by 56 unique home care agencies completed the survey. HHWs took HF patients to a median of 3 doctor appointments in the last year with 21.9% of them taking patients to ≥ 7 doctor appointments. Nearly a quarter of HHWs reported that these appointments were in ≥ 3 different health systems. A third of HHWs organized care for their HF patient with ≥ 2 family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: HHWs' scope of health-related interactions is large, indicating that there may be novel opportunities to leverage HHWs' experiences to improve health care delivery and patient care in HF.

Diabetes and cancer co-management: patient-reported challenges, needs, and priorities.

INTRODUCTION: Twenty percent of breast cancer survivors have co-occurring diabetes and face a 50% greater risk of 10-year mortality compared to survivors without diabetes. Individuals with cancer are often overwhelmed during cancer treatment and have less time for their diabetes, contributing to worse outcomes. We elicited perspectives of breast cancer survivors with diabetes regarding their specific needs for diabetes and cancer co-management. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with women with breast cancer aged 40 + years at three New York City hospitals from May 2021 to March 2022. Eligible participants had type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 15 females with breast cancer of mean age 61.5 years (SD 7.2); 70% were Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander, and 20% had only a high school education. Most (73%) patients were insured by Medicaid or Medicare, and 73% underwent chemotherapy as part of their cancer care. Of the 15 participants, 60% reported that their glucose levels were of control during cancer treatment and nearly 50% reported glucose levels > 200 mg/dL. We identified distinct themes that reflect patient-reported challenges (worse glucose control after initiation of cancer treatment, lack of information on co-managing diabetes, negative psychosocial effects, burden of diabetes management during cancer care) and needs/priorities (designated provider to help, educational resources specific to diabetes and cancer, and individualized care plans). CONCLUSIONS: Patients co-managing diabetes and cancer face challenges and have unmet needs that should be addressed to improve diabetes control during cancer treatment. Our findings can directly inform interventions aimed at improving glucose control in this population.

Self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse outcomes among older adults receiving home health care.

BACKGROUND: Older adults see multiple outpatient providers and increasingly use home health care (HHC) services. Previous studies attempting to draw inferences about the association between HHC use and patient outcomes have been mixed. Whether HHC is associated with care coordination and how both influence outcomes are unknown. In addition, prior studies have not taken the patient perspective into account. We examined the association between receiving HHC and self-reported gaps in care coordination and separately, preventable adverse outcomes. METHODS: The analysis for this cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2021 and June 2022, using data on 4296 Medicare beneficiaries from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who completed a survey on care coordination from 2017 to 2018. The associations between the receipt of HHC and two outcomes (a gap in care coordination, and separately, a preventable adverse event) were examined with Poisson models with robust standard errors. Potential confounders were accounted for through propensity score-based inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Among 4296 participants, 430 (10%) received HHC and they were older and had more comorbidities and ambulatory visits than those without HHC. HHC was not associated with differences in self-reported gaps in care coordination (33.3% HHC vs. 32.5% no-HHC, p = 0.70). HHC recipients reported more preventable drug-drug interactions (9.1% vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001) but not more preventable ED visits or hospital admissions. In IPW-adjusted models, HHC was not associated with gaps in care coordination (p = 0.60) but was associated with double the risk of a preventable adverse outcome (aRR 2.06; CI: 1.37, 3.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HHC recipients were significantly more likely (than those without HHC) to report a potentially preventable adverse event (particularly a drug-drug interaction), suggesting an opportunity to improve patient safety by leveraging the observations of older adults receiving HHC.

Ambulatory Care Fragmentation, Emergency Department Visits, and Race: a Nationwide Cohort Study in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether highly fragmented ambulatory care (i.e., care spread across multiple providers without a dominant provider) increases the risk of an emergency department (ED) visit. Whether any such association varies with race is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether highly fragmented ambulatory care increases the risk of an ED visit, overall and by race. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data for 14,361 participants ≥ 65 years old from the nationwide prospective REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort study, linked to Medicare claims (2003-2016). MAIN MEASURES: We defined high fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index ≥ 0.85 (≥ 75th percentile). We used Poisson models to determine the association between fragmentation (as a time-varying exposure) and ED visits, overall and stratified by race, adjusting for demographics, medical conditions, medications, health behaviors, psychosocial variables, and physiologic variables. KEY RESULTS: The average participant was 70.5 years old; 53% were female, and 33% were Black individuals. Participants with high fragmentation had a median of 9 visits to 6 providers, with 29% of visits by the most frequently seen provider; participants with low fragmentation had a median of 7 visits to 3 providers, with 50% of visits by the most frequently seen provider. Overall, high fragmentation was associated with more ED visits than low fragmentation (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.34). The magnitude of this association was larger among Black (aRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44, 1.53) than White participants (aRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.20, 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Highly fragmented ambulatory care was an independent predictor of ED visits, especially among Black individuals.

Development and Piloting of a Community-Partnered Heart Failure Training Course for Home Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: Despite their unique contributions to heart failure (HF) care, home healthcare workers (HHWs) have unmet educational needs and many lack HF caregiving self-efficacy. To address this, we used a community-partnered approach to develop and pilot a HF training course for HHWs. METHODS: We partnered with the Training and Employment Fund, a benefit fund of the largest healthcare union in the United States, to develop a 2-hour virtual HF training course that met HHWs' job-specific needs. English and Spanish-speaking HHWs interested in HF training, with access to Zoom, were eligible. We used a mixed methods design with pre/postsurveys and semi-structured interviews to evaluate the course: (a) feasibility, (b) acceptability, and (c) effectiveness (change in knowledge [Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge Scale range 0-15] and caregiving self-efficacy [HF Caregiver Self-efficacy Scale range 0-100]). RESULTS: Of the 210 HHWs approached, 100 were eligible and agreed, and 70 enrolled. Of them, 53 (employed by 15 different home care agencies) participated. Posttraining data showed significant improvements (pretraining mean [SD] versus posttraining mean [SD]; P value) in HF knowledge (11.21 [1.90] versus 12.21 [1.85]; P=0.0000) and HF caregiving self-efficacy (75.21 [16.57] versus 82.29 [16.49]; P=0.0017); the greatest gains occurred among those with the lowest pre-training scores. Participants found the course engaging, technically feasible, and highly relevant to their scope of care. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and piloted the first HF training course for HHWs, which was feasible, acceptable, and improved their HF knowledge and caregiving self-efficacy. Our findings warrant scalability to the workforce at large with a train-the-trainer model.

Predicting Fragmented Care: Beneficiary, Physician, Practice, and Market Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Understanding what drives fragmented ambulatory care (care spread across multiple providers without a dominant provider) can inform the design of future interventions to reduce unnecessary fragmentation. OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of beneficiaries, primary care physicians, primary care practice sites, and geographic markets that predict highly fragmented ambulatory care in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims data for beneficiaries attributed to primary care physicians and practices in 2018. We used hierarchical linear models with random intercepts and an extensive list of explanatory variables to predict the likelihood of high fragmentation. SUBJECTS: A total of 3,540,310 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries met the inclusion criteria, attributed to 26,344 primary care physicians in 9300 practice sites, and 788 geographic markets. MEASURES: We defined high care fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index score above 0.85. RESULTS: Explanatory variables explained only 6% of the variation in highly fragmented care. Unobserved differences between primary care physicians, between practice sites, and between markets together accounted for 4%. Instead, 90% of the variation in high fragmentation was unobserved residual variance. We identified the characteristics of beneficiaries (age, reason for original Medicare entitlement, and dually eligible for Medicaid insurance), physicians (comprehensiveness of care), and practices (size, being part of a system/hospital) that had small associations with high fragmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in fragmentation was not explained by observed beneficiary, primary care provider, practice site, or market characteristics. Instead, the aggregate behavior of diverse health care providers beyond primary care, along with unmeasured patient preferences and behaviors, seem to be important predictors.

Veterans' ambulatory care experience during COVID-19: veterans' access to and satisfaction with primary care early in the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes to healthcare, but few studies focus on ambulatory care during the early phase of the pandemic. We characterize veterans' ambulatory care experience, specifically access and satisfaction, early in the pandemic. METHODS: We employed a semi-structured telephone interview to capture quantitative and qualitative data from patients scheduled with a primary care provider between March 1 - June 30, 2020. Forty veterans were randomly identified at a single large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center. The interview guide utilized 56 closed and open-ended questions to characterize veterans' perceptions of access to and satisfaction with their primary care experience at VHA and non-VHA primary care sources. We also explored the context of veterans' daily lives during the pandemic. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and verbatim quotes using a matrix analysis. RESULTS: Veterans reported completing more appointments (mean 2.6 (SD 2.2)) than scheduled (mean 2.3 (SD 2.2)) mostly due to same-day or urgent visits, with a shift to telephone (mean 2.1 (SD 2.2)) and video (mean 1.5 (SD 0.6)). Among those who reported decreased access to care early in the pandemic (n = 27 (67%)), 15 (56%) cited administrative barriers ("The phone would hang up on me") and 9 (33%) reported a lack of provider availability ("They are not reaching out like they used to"). While most veterans (n = 31 (78%)) were highly satisfied with their VHA care (mean score 8.6 (SD 2.0 on a 0-10 scale), 9 (23%) reported a decrease in satisfaction since the pandemic. The six (15%) veterans who utilized non-VHA providers during the period of interest reported, on average, higher satisfaction ratings (mean 9.5 (SD 1.2)). Many veterans reported psychosocial effects such as the worsening of mental health (n = 6 (15%)), anxiety concerning the virus (n = 12 (30%)), and social isolation (n = 8 (20%), "I stay inside and away from people"). CONCLUSIONS: While the number of encounters reported suggest adequate access and satisfaction, the comments regarding barriers to care suggest that enhanced approaches may be warranted to improve and sustain veteran perceptions of adequate access to and satisfaction with primary care during times of crisis.

Communication Gaps Persist Between Primary Care and Specialist Physicians.

A survey conducted with data from 2008 found that physicians often do not communicate with each other at the time of referral or after consultation. Communication between physicians might have improved since then, with the dissemination of electronic health records (EHRs), but this is not known. We used 2019 survey data to measure primary care physicians' perceptions of communication at the time of referral and after consultation. We found that large gaps in communication persist. The similarity between these survey results suggests that despite the dissemination of EHRs, physicians still do not consistently communicate with each other about the patients they share.

Nearly All Cancer Survivors Return to Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: During cancer treatments, patients often defer primary care and comorbidity management, which may not be optimal for overall health when patients transition into survivorship. We sought to quantify primary care utilization among cancer survivors who are ≥2 years post cancer treatments. METHODS: 951 cancer survivors were included in this national, prospective cohort study using the Regional Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) data. RESULTS: Nearly all (91.6%) cancer survivors had at least 1 annual PCP visit and most (54.6%) had a PCP as their dominant provider. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the urgent need for smooth handoffs from oncology back to primary care.

Frailty, gaps in care coordination, and preventable adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Older US adults often receive care from multiple ambulatory providers. Seeing multiple providers may be clinically appropriate but creates challenges for communication. Whether frailty is a risk factor for gaps in communication among older adults and subsequent preventable adverse events is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community-dwelling US adults ≥ 65 years of age in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who attended an in-home study examination in 2013-2016 and completed a survey on experiences with healthcare in 2017-2018 (n = 5,024). Using 5 frailty indicators (low body mass index, exhaustion, slow walk, weakness, and history of falls), we characterized participants into 3 mutually exclusive groups: not frail (0 indicators), intermediate-frail (1-2 indicators), and frail (3-5 indicators). We used survey data on self-reported gaps in care coordination and self-reported adverse events that participants attributed to poor communication among providers (a drug-drug interaction, repeat testing, an emergency department visit, or a hospital admission). RESULTS: Overall, 2,398 (47.7%) participants were not frail, 2,436 (48.5%) were intermediate-frail, and 190 (3.8%) were frail. The prevalence of any gap in care coordination was 37.0%, 40.8%, and 51.1% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) for any gap in care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail participants was 1.09 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02-1.18) and 1.34 (95%CI 1.15-1.56), respectively. The prevalence of any preventable adverse event was 7.0%, 11.3% and 20.0% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted PR for any preventable adverse event among those who were intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail was 1.47 (95%CI 1.22-1.77) and 2.24 (95%CI 1.60-3.14), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among older adults, frailty is associated with an increased prevalence for self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse events. Targeted interventions to address patient-reported concerns regarding care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail older adults may be warranted.

Managing diabetes during treatment for breast cancer: oncology and primary care providers' views on barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Diabetes is a prevalent comorbid condition among many women with breast cancer. The roles and responsibilities of managing diabetes during cancer care are unclear, as oncologists lack interest and clinical expertise and many patients stop seeing their primary care providers (PCPs). Uncertainty around who should manage diabetes for cancer patients can result in gaps in care for survivors. We sought to elicit the perspectives of providers about a novel diabetes care delivery intervention for women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted nominal group sessions with PCPs and breast oncologists across the USA. We introduced a novel care delivery model, which involved a nurse practitioner (NP) specifically trained in diabetes to work within the oncology team to manage diabetes for women during chemotherapy. PCPs and oncologists were asked to identify potential barriers and facilitators to the intervention's success and then vote on the top three most important barriers and facilitators, separately. Votes were aggregated across sessions and presented as frequencies and weighted percentages. RESULTS: From November to December 2020, two 60-min sessions with PCPs and two 60-min sessions with breast oncologists were held virtually. In total, 29 providers participated, with 16 PCPs and 13 breast oncologists. At the health system level, financial support for the NP-led intervention was identified as the most important barrier across both provider types. Clearly defined roles for each care team member were identified as the most important facilitator at the care team level. At the patient level, lack of cancer-specific diabetes education was identified as an important barrier. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the need to engage various stakeholders including policy makers, institutional leadership, care team members, and patients to improve diabetes care for patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. As such, multi-disciplinary interventions are warranted to increase awareness, engagement, and self-management practices among breast cancer patients with diabetes.

Health care fragmentation and blood pressure control among adults taking antihypertensive medication.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of fragmented ambulatory health care with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) among older adults taking antihypertensive medication, overall and by race and gender. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from 2868 REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study participants 66 years and older who completed a study examination in 2013-2016, had Medicare fee-for-service coverage, and were taking antihypertensive medication. METHODS: We used logistic regression to analyze the association of fragmented health care with uncontrolled BP and aTRH. Fragmented health care was operationalized as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index score in the 75th percentile or higher, calculated using the number of ambulatory providers and health care visits in the year preceding the study examination. Uncontrolled BP was defined by systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg. aTRH was defined by taking 3 or more classes of antihypertensive medication with uncontrolled BP or 4 or more classes with controlled BP. RESULTS: The overall adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) for uncontrolled BP, aTRH with controlled BP, and aTRH with uncontrolled BP associated with fragmented health care were 1.10 (0.89-1.37), 1.08 (0.80-1.47), and 1.32 (0.96-1.81), respectively. Fragmented health care was not associated with uncontrolled BP or aTRH among White participants, women, or men. Among Black participants, the odds ratio (95% CI) associated with fragmented health care was 1.21 (0.81-1.82) for uncontrolled BP, 1.22 (0.72-2.07) for aTRH with controlled BP, and 1.82 (1.07-3.11) for aTRH with uncontrolled BP. CONCLUSIONS: Fragmented health care may increase the likelihood of aTRH with uncontrolled BP among older Black adults taking antihypertensive medication.

Primary care redesign and care fragmentation among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To determine associations between a large-scale primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Initiative-and the extent of continuity or fragmentation of ambulatory care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first 3 years of CPC+. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences framework with a comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC+ practices at baseline (eg, practice size, demographics, Medicare spending). Regressions controlled for clustering, baseline patient characteristics, and practice fixed effects. Our study covered January 2016 through December 2019 and included 1,085,707 beneficiaries attributed to 2883 CPC+ practices and 2,274,068 beneficiaries attributed to 6912 comparison practices. METHODS: We focused on beneficiaries with highly fragmented care at baseline because they may have changed the most in response to CPC+. Key outcome measures were the numbers of ambulatory visits and unique practitioners, reported by specialty category; the percentage of visits with the usual provider of care (measuring continuity); and the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index (rBBI; measuring fragmentation). RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with high fragmentation (rBBI ≥ 0.85) at baseline (40% of the sample) had a mean of 13 ambulatory visits across 7 practitioners; the most frequent provider of care accounted for only 28% of visits. By contrast, the remaining beneficiaries had a mean of 10 visits across 4 practitioners, with the most frequent provider accounting for 54% of visits. There were no differences in continuity or fragmentation of care for CPC+ vs comparison beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: We find no evidence that CPC+ increased continuity or decreased fragmentation of care.

Racial Disparities in Diabetes-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes receive less recommended diabetes care after cancer diagnosis than non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). We sought to determine whether racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes and cancer were at increased risk of diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations compared with NHW. METHODS: Using SEER cancer registry data linked to Medicare claims from 2006 to 2014, we included Medicare beneficiaries age 66+ years diagnosed with incident nonmetastatic breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer between 2007 and 2012 who had diabetes. Our primary outcome was any diabetes-related ED visit or hospitalization 366-731 days after cancer diagnosis. Using Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models, we examined whether risk of ED visits or hospitalizations was higher for racial/ethnic minorities compared with NHW. RESULTS: We included 40,059 beneficiaries with mean age 75.5 years (standard deviation 6.3), 45.6% were women, and 28.9% were non-White. Overall, 825 (2.1%) had an ED visit and 3,324 (8.3%) had a hospitalization related to diabetes in the 366-731 days after cancer diagnosis. Compared with NHW, Black individuals were more likely to have ED visits (2.9% v 2.0%; P < .0001) and hospitalizations (11.7% v 7.8%; P < .0001). Adjusting for potential confounders, Black (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.35) individuals had a higher risk of any ED visit or hospitalization compared with NHW. CONCLUSION: Black individuals with diabetes and cancer were at increased risk for diabetes-related ED visits and hospitalizations in the second year after cancer diagnosis compared with NHW even after accounting for confounders.