Spatial Inequities in COVID-19 Testing, Positivity, Confirmed Cases, and Mortality in 3 U.S. Cities: An Ecological Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 7

Background: Preliminary evidence has shown inequities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related cases and deaths in the United States. Objective: To explore the emergence of spatial inequities in COVID-19 testing, positivity, confirmed cases, and mortality in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago during the first 6 months of the pandemic. Design: Ecological, observational study at the ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) level from March to September 2020. Setting: Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. Participants: All populated ZCTAs in the 3 cities. Measurements: Outcomes were ZCTA-level COVID-19 testing, positivity, confirmed cases, and mortality cumulatively through the end of September 2020. Predictors were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index and its 4 domains, obtained from the 2014–2018 American Community Survey. The spatial autocorrelation of COVID-19 outcomes was examined by using global and local Moran I statistics, and estimated associations were examined by using spatial conditional autoregressive negative binomial models. Results: Spatial clusters of high and low positivity, confirmed cases, and mortality were found, co-located with clusters of low and high social vulnerability in the 3 cities. Evidence was also found for spatial inequities in testing, positivity, confirmed cases, and mortality. Specifically, neighborhoods with higher social vulnerability had lower testing rates and higher positivity ratios, confirmed case rates, and mortality rates. Limitations: The ZCTAs are imperfect and heterogeneous geographic units of analysis. Surveillance data were used, which may be incomplete. Conclusion: Spatial inequities exist in COVID-19 testing, positivity, confirmed cases, and mortality in 3 large U.S. cities. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Trends in Overweight and Obesity Self-awareness Among Adults With Overweight or Obesity in the United States, 1999 to 2016

The Last Chapter

Surprise Billing for Colonoscopy: The Scope of the Problem

Eat Even More Vegetables and Fruits to Protect Your Heart

SARS-CoV-2–Positive Sputum and Feces After Conversion of Pharyngeal Samples in Patients With COVID-19

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Protecting Hospitals From the Invisible

The Productivity Requirements of Implementing a Medical Scribe Program

Background: Economic analyses of medical scribes have been limited to individual, specialty-specific clinics. Objective: To determine the number of additional patient visits various specialties would need to recover the costs of implementing scribes in their practice at 1 year. Design: Modeling study based on 2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Scribe costs were based on literature review and a third-party contractor model. Revenue was calculated from direct visit billing, CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) billing, and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Data Sources: 2015 data from CMS and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Target Population: Health care providers. Time Horizon: 1 year. Perspective: Office-based clinic. Outcome Measures: The number of additional patient visits a physician must have to recover the costs of a scribe program at 1 year. Results of Base-Case Analysis: An average of 1.34 additional new patient visits per day (295 per year) were required to recover scribe costs (range, 0.89 [cardiology] to 1.80 [orthopedic surgery] new patient visits per day). For returning patients, an average of 2.15 additional visits per day (472 per year) were required (range, 1.65 [cardiology] to 2.78 [orthopedic surgery] returning visits per day). The addition of 2 new patient (or 3 returning) visits per day was profitable for all specialties. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were not sensitive to most inputs, with the exception of hourly scribe cost and inclusion of CPT revenue. Limitation: Use of Medicare data and failure to account for indirect costs, downstream revenue, or changes in documentation quality. Conclusion: For all specialties, modest increases in productivity due to scribes may allow physicians to see more patients and offset scribe costs, making scribe programs revenue-neutral. Primary Funding Source: University of Chicago Medicine's Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation and the Bucksbaum Institute.

The Use of Rifaximin in the Prevention of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 174, No 5

Background: The efficacy of rifaximin in the secondary prevention of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is well documented, but its effectiveness in preventing a first episode in patients after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has not been established. Objective: To determine whether rifaximin prevents overt HE after TIPS compared with placebo. Design: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02016196) Participants: 197 patients with cirrhosis undergoing TIPS for intractable ascites or prevention of variceal rebleeding. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive rifaximin (600 mg twice daily) or placebo, beginning 14 days before TIPS and continuing for 168 days after the procedure. Measurements: The primary efficacy end point was incidence of overt HE within 168 days after the TIPS procedure. Results: An episode of overt HE occurred in 34% (95% CI, 25% to 44%) of patients in the rifaximin group (n = 93) and 53% (CI, 43% to 63%) in the placebo group (n = 93) during the postprocedure period (odds ratio, 0.48 [CI, 0.27 to 0.87]). Neither the incidence of adverse events nor transplant-free survival was significantly different between the 2 groups. Limitations: The study's conclusion applies mainly to patients with alcoholic cirrhosis, who made up the study population. The potential benefit of rifaximin 6 months after TIPS and beyond remains to be investigated. Conclusion: In patients with cirrhosis treated with TIPS, rifaximin was well tolerated and reduced the risk for overt HE. Rifaximin should therefore be considered for prophylaxis of post-TIPS HE. Primary Funding Source: French Public Health Ministry.

Factors Influencing Physician Practices' Adoption of Behavioral Health Integration in the United States: A Qualitative Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 173, No 2

Background: Behavioral health integration is uncommon among U.S. physician practices despite recent policy changes that may encourage its adoption. Objective: To describe factors influencing physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration. Design: Semistructured interviews with leaders and clinicians from physician practices that adopted behavioral health integration, supplemented by contextual interviews with experts and vendors in behavioral health integration. Setting: 30 physician practices, sampled for diversity on specialty, size, affiliation with parent organizations, geographic location, and behavioral health integration model (collaborative or co-located). Participants: 47 physician practice leaders and clinicians, 20 experts, and 5 vendors. Measurements: Qualitative analysis (cyclical coding) of interview transcripts. Results: Four overarching factors affecting physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration were identified. First, practices' motivations for integrating behavioral health care included expanding access to behavioral health services, improving other clinicians' abilities to respond to patients' behavioral health needs, and enhancing practice reputation. Second, practices tailored their implementation of behavioral health integration to local resources, financial incentives, and patient populations. Third, barriers to behavioral health integration included cultural differences and incomplete information flow between behavioral and nonbehavioral health clinicians and billing difficulties. Fourth, practices described the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few reported positive financial returns. Limitation: The practice sample was not nationally representative and excluded practices that did not implement or sustain behavioral health integration, potentially limiting generalizability. Conclusion: Practices currently using behavioral health integration face cultural, informational, and financial barriers to implementing and sustaining behavioral health integration. Tailored, context-specific technical support to guide practices' implementation and payment models that improve the business case for practices may enhance the dissemination and long-term sustainability of behavioral health integration. Primary Funding Source: American Medical Association and The Commonwealth Fund.