Association of rurality, socioeconomic status, and race with pancreatic cancer surgical treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a necessary component of curative intent therapy for pancreatic cancer, and patients living in nonmetropolitan areas may face barriers to accessing timely surgical care. We evaluated the intersecting associations of rurality, socioeconomic status (SES), and race on treatment and outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using fee-for-service Medicare claims of beneficiaries with incident pancreatic cancer (2016-2018). We categorized beneficiary place of residence as metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural. Measures of SES were Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility and the Area Deprivation Index. Primary study outcomes were receipt of pancreatectomy and 1-year mortality. Exposure-outcome associations were assessed with competing risks and logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 45 915 beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, including 78.4%, 10.9%, and 10.7% residing in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, respectively. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastasis, residents of micropolitan and rural areas were less likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.88 for rural, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.95) and had higher 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.25 for rural, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.33) compared with metropolitan residents. Adjustment for measures of SES attenuated the association of nonmetropolitan residence with mortality, and there was no statistically significant association of rurality with pancreatectomy after adjustment. Black beneficiaries had lower likelihood of pancreatectomy than White, non-Hispanic beneficiaries (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.89, adjusted for SES). One-year mortality in metropolitan areas was higher for Black beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Rurality, socioeconomic deprivation, and race have complex interrelationships and are associated with disparities in pancreatic cancer treatment and outcomes.

Comparison of Populations Served in Hospital Service Areas With and Without Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Medical Homes.

Importance: Little is known about the types of primary care practices that have chosen to participate in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program or about how participation could affect disparities. Objective: To describe practices that joined the CPC+ model and compare hospital service areas with and without CPC+ practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative cross-sectional study identified 2647 CPC+ practices in round 1 (from January 1, 2017; round 1 is ongoing through 2021). Using IMS Health Care Organization Services data, ownership and characteristics of health systems and practices were extracted. Practices participating in the CPC+ program were compared with practices with similar proportions of primary care physicians (>85%) within the 14 regions designated as eligible to participate by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Within eligible regions, hospital service areas with (n = 434) and without (n = 322) 1 or more CPC+ practice were compared. Characteristics compared included area-level population demographics (from the US Census Bureau), health system characteristics (from the IMS Health Care Organization Services), and use of health services by Medicare fee-for-service enrollees (Dartmouth Atlas). Main Outcomes and Measures: Area-level characteristics of all eligible CPC+ regions, areas without a CPC+ practice, and areas with 1 or more CPC+ practices. Results: Of 756 eligible service areas, 322 had no CPC+ practices and 434 had at least 1 CPC+ practice. Of 2647 CPC+ practices, 579 (21.9%) had 1 physician and 1791 (67.7%) had 2 to 10 physicians. In areas without CPC+ practices, the population had a lower median income ($43 197 [interquartile range, $42 170-$44 224] vs $57 206 [interquartile range, $55 470-$58 941]), higher mean share of households living in poverty (17.8% [95% CI, 17.2%-18.4%] vs 14.4% [95% CI, 13.9%-15.0%]), higher mean educational attainment of high school or less (52.7% [95% CI, 51.7%-53.6%] vs 43.1% [95% CI, 42.1%-44.2%]), higher mean proportion of disabled residents (17.7% [95% CI, 17.3%-18.2%] vs 14.2% [13.8%-14.6%]), higher mean participation in Medicare (21.9% [95% CI, 21.3%-22.4%] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 18.3%-19.1%]) and Medicaid (22.2% [95% CI, 21.5%-22.9%]) vs 18.5% [95% CI, 17.8%-19.2%]), and higher mean proportion of uninsured residents (12.4% [95% CI, 11.9%-12.9%] vs 10.3% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.7%]) (P < .001 for all) compared with areas that had a CPC+ practice. Conclusions and Relevance: According to this study, although a diverse set of practices joined the CPC+ program, practices in areas characterized by patient populations with greater advantage were more likely to join, which may affect access to advanced primary care medical home models such as CPC+, by vulnerable populations.