Impact of Residential Segregation on Healthcare Utilization and Perceived Quality of Care Among Informal Caregivers in the United States.

This study aimed to investigate the impact of racial residential segregation on healthcare utilization and perceived quality of care among informal caregivers in the US. It further assessed potential variations in the estimated impact across caregivers' race and socioeconomic status. We used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey Data Linkage Project (fielded in 2020) for a sample of 583 self-identified informal caregivers in the US. Fitting a series of regression models with the maximum likelihood estimation, we computed the beta coefficients (ß) of interest and their associated Wald 95% confidence limits (CI). Caregivers who resided in areas with higher segregation, compared to those living in lower segregated areas, were less likely to visit a healthcare professional [ß = - 2.08; Wald 95%CI - 2.093, - 2.067] (moderate); [ß = - 2.53; Wald 95%CI - 2.549, - 2.523] (high)]. Further, caregivers residing in moderate [ß = - 0.766; Wald 95%CI - 0.770, - 0.761] and high [ß = - 0.936; Wald 95%CI - 0.941, - 0.932] segregation regions were less likely to perceive a better quality of care compared to those located in low segregation areas. Moreover, as segregation level increased, Black caregivers were less likely to see a health professional, less frequently used healthcare services, and had poorer perceived healthcare quality when compared to Whites. Our findings indicate that higher residential segregation is associated with lower healthcare utilization, such as visiting a healthcare professional, and poorer perceived healthcare quality among informal caregivers. Given the essential role of informal caregivers in the current healthcare system, it is vital to investigate and address challenges associated with access to and quality of essential healthcare services to improve caregivers' health and well-being, specifically for caregivers of minority backgrounds.

Comorbidities and neighborhood factors associated with prescription of sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among medically underserved populations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from clinical trials shows that newer second-line diabetes medications-glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is)-have cardio-renal protective effects in addition to their glucose-lowering properties. Despite strong evidence of benefits, there is limited evidence regarding prescribing patterns for these medications, especially among populations at high risk for disparities. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of cardio-renal and obesity comorbidities and neighborhood factors with the prescribing of GLP-1RAs or SGLT2is in comparison with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) or sulfonylureas (SFUs) and for each of the newer second-line diabetes medications (GLP-1RA vs DPP-4i, SGLT2i vs DPP-4i, GLP-1RA vs SFU, and SGLT2i vs SFU) in medically underserved populations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical records from a health care delivery system that serves medically underserved populations in the Mid-South region of the United States. Metformin-treated adult patients with type 2 diabetes, and at least 1 prescription for GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, DPP-4i, or SFU class medications, were identified between April 2016 and August 2021. Neighborhood factors were assessed at the census tract level by geocoding and linking patient addresses to neighborhood-level risk factors. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we examined the associations of comorbidities and neighborhood factors with the prescription of newer second-line diabetes medications. RESULTS: 7,723 patients received newer second-line diabetes medications, with 16% prescribed GLP-1RAs, 11% prescribed SGLT2is, 28% prescribed DPP-4is, and 45% prescribed SFUs. Patients with cerebrovascular disease were significantly less likely to receive newer second-line diabetes medications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52-0.80). Patients with obesity were more likely to receive newer second-line diabetes medications (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.48-1.90). Living in neighborhoods with higher proportions of college graduates was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving newer second-line diabetes medications (quartile 3 vs 1: OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06-1.59; and quartile 4 vs 1: OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate substantial underprescribing and significant clinical and neighborhood variations in the use of newer second-line diabetes medications. We found lower use of newer second-line diabetes medications among patients with cerebrovascular disease and higher use in those with obesity. Our findings also suggest that newer second-line diabetes medications are first adopted by those in higher socioeconomic groups, thus increasing disparities in care. DISCLOSURES: Dr Surbhi reports grants or contracts from the Tennessee Department of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and PhRMA Foundation. Dr Bailey reports honoraria from the SouthEast Texas Chapter of the American College of Healthcare Executives, leadership or fiduciary role in the Coalition for Better Health and The Healthy City, Inc., and stock or stock options in Proctor and Gamble, Walmart, and Apple. Dr Kovesdy reports personal fees from Bayer, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Tricida, Akebia, Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Rockwell, CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK, outside the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.