Geographic access to cardiac rehabilitation and cardiovascular disease outcomes: A study of rural United States counties.

Prior studies have examined rural-urban disparities in access to cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, few have examined the relationship between disparate access to CR and cardiovascular disease outcomes in rural areas. In this analysis of 1975 nonmetro United States counties, we investigated the relationship between number of hospitals with CR and Medicare-population hospitalization rates (per 1000 adults ≥65 years) and county-population mortality rates (per 100,000 adults ≥18 years) due to coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke, using multivariable linear-regression-modeling adjusting for socio-demographic and comorbid conditions. Median CHD hospitalization (13.0 vs. 12.2), HF hospitalization (16.1 vs. 13.3), HF death (114.2 vs. 110.9), stroke hospitalization (12.0 vs. 10.9), and stroke death (39.6 vs. 37.1) rates were higher in nonmetro counties without versus with a CR facility (p-values< 0.001). There were inverse correlations between number of hospitals with CR and CHD (r= -0.161), HF (r= -0.261) and stroke (r= -0.237) hospitalization rates, and stroke mortality (r= -0.144) rates (p-values< 0.001). After adjustment, as the number of hospitals with CR increased, there were decreases in hospitalization rates of 1.78 for CHD, 7.20 for HF, and 2.43 for stroke, per 1000 in the population (p-values < 0.001) and decreases in stroke deaths of 9.17 per 100,000 in the population (p= 0.02). Access to hospitals with CR in US nonmetro counties is inversely related to CHD, HF, and stroke hospitalization, and stroke mortality. Our findings call for reducing barriers to CR in nonmetro communities and further exploring the relationship between CR and stroke outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiology fellow echocardiography education at a large academic center.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19 pandemic state restrictions, our institution deferred elective procedures from 3/15/2020 to 6/13/2020, and removed cardiology fellows from the echocardiography rotation to staff clinical services. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fellow education and echocardiography volumes. METHODS: Our institutional database was used to examine volumes of transthoracic (TTE), stress (SE), and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) from 7/1/2018 to 10/10/2020. Study volumes were compared in three intervals: pre-pandemic (7/1/2018- 3/14/2020), pandemic (3/15/2020-6/13/2020), and pandemic recovery (6/14/2020-10/10/2020). We examined weekly number of TTEs performed or interpreted by cardiology fellows during the study period, and compared these to the two previous academic years. RESULTS: Weekly TTE volume declined by 54% during the pandemic, and increased by 99% during pandemic recovery, (p < 0.05). SE and TEE revealed similar trends. A strong correlation between weekly TTE volume and inpatient admissions was observed during the study period (rs=0.67, p < 0.05). Weekly fellow TTE scans declined by 78% during the pandemic, with a 380% increase during pandemic recovery (p < 0.05). Weekly fellow TTE interpretations declined by 56% during the pandemic, with a 76% increase during pandemic recovery (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: COVID restrictions between 3/15/2020- 6/14/2020 coincided with a marked decline in TTE, SE, and TEE volumes, with an increase similar to near pre-pandemic volumes during the pandemic recovery period. A similar decline with the onset of COVID restrictions, and increase to pre-restriction volumes thereafter was observed with fellow scans and interpretations, but total academic year fellow training volumes remained depressed. With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and rise of multiple variants, training programs may need to adjust fellows' clinical responsibilities so as to support achievement of echocardiography training certification.

Cardiac Rehabilitation and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Persistent Declines in Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation and Access Among US Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown. METHODS: Among eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100 000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between 2 periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, before declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available). RESULTS: In period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean±SD) 895±84 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021 but remained lower than prepandemic levels (period 2: 698±29 CR sessions per month per 100 000 beneficiaries, P=0.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the 2 periods. Compared with 2618±5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2464±7 in period 2 (P<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.

The Price of Progress: Cost, Access, and Adoption of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The launch of new effective and safe cardiovascular drugs has produced large gains in health outcomes for several cardiovascular conditions. But this innovation comes at the cost of rapidly increasing pharmaceutical spending and high out-of-pocket costs. RECENT FINDINGS: In the USA, manufacturers are able to set prices according to what the market will bear rather than value to patients or society, with a complicated system of discounts and rebates obscuring the final price borne by payors. Some of these costs are passed on to patients in the form of co-payments or co-insurance, making these effective but high-cost medications unaffordable for many patients. Orphan drugs developed to treat rare diseases-for which manufactures are presented substantial financial and regulatory benefits-are particularly problematic, as they typically enter the market at very high prices compared with drugs for other indications. Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses from the healthcare sector or societal perspectives can help identify the value-based price of a medication at market entry as well as later in the lifecycle of the drug when more data on effectiveness and safety becomes available. Despite bipartisan support, legislative progress on drug pricing has been slow. Clinicians should know the cost of the drugs they prescribe frequently, use generics where feasible, and regularly discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients to pre-empt cost-related non-adherence.