Chia-Hung Chou

Provision of Community Benefits by Tax-Exempt U.S. Hospitals

BACKGROUND The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires tax-exempt hospitals to conduct assessments of community needs and address identified needs. Most tax-exempt hospitals will need to meet this requirement by the end of 2013. METHODS We conducted a national study of the level and pattern of community benefits that tax-exempt hospitals provide. The study comprised more than 1800 tax-exempt hospitals, approximately two thirds of all such institutions. We used reports that hospitals filed with the Internal Revenue Service for fiscal year 2009 that provide expenditures for seven types of community benefits. We combined these reports with other data to examine whether institutional, community, and market characteristics are associated with the provision of community benefits by hospitals. RESULTS Tax-exempt hospitals spent 7.5% of their operating expenses on community benefits during fiscal year 2009. More than 85% of these expenditures were devoted to charity care and other patient care services. Of the remaining community-benefit expenditures, approximately 5% were devoted to community health improvements that hospitals undertook directly. The rest went to education in health professions, research, and contributions to community groups. The level of benefits provided varied widely among the hospitals (hospitals in the top decile devoted approximately 20% of operating expenses to community benefits; hospitals in the bottom decile devoted approximately 1%). This variation was not accounted for by indicators of community need. CONCLUSIONS In 2009, tax-exempt hospitals varied markedly in the level of community benefits provided, with most of their benefit-related expenditures allocated to patient care services. Little was spent on community health improvement.

Revisiting Disparities in Quality of Care Among US Adults With Diabetes in the Era of Individualized Care, NHANES 2007-2010.

Background:Diabetes quality of care standards promote uniform goals and are used routinely for performance measurement and reimbursement. Diabetes health disparities have been characterized using these universal goals. However, guidelines emphasize individualized goals. Objectives:To assess diabetes care disparities using individualized goals to (1) determine their racial/ethnic distribution and (2) compare disparities using individualized versus uniform goals. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures:A nationally representative sample of non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic adults with self-reported diabetes aged 20 years or more in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007–2010. Individualized glycemic goals (A1C<6.5%, <7.0%, or <8.0%) assigned based on age, duration, complications, and comorbidity, and cholesterol goals [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) <70 or <100 mg/dL] assigned based on cardiovascular history. Results:More Hispanics were recommended an individualized A1C<7.0% compared with whites (54% vs. 42%, P=0.008). Fewer blacks and Hispanics were recommended an individualized LDL<70 mg/dL than whites (21% and 19% vs. 28%, P=0.02 and 0.001). Fewer Hispanics had adequate individualized A1C control (56% vs. 68%, P<0.001), and fewer blacks and Hispanics had adequate individualized LDL control (31% and 36% vs. 51%, P⩽0.001 and P=0.004). A uniform A1C<7% goal did not reveal disparities in glycemic control; individualized A1C and LDL, blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, and nonsmoking was achieved by few adults (18%), and fewer blacks and Hispanics than whites (6% and 11% vs. 22%, P<0.001 and P=0.005). Conclusions:Individualized goals for diabetes care may unearth greater racial/ethnic disparities in clinical performance compared with uniform goals. Diabetes performance measures should include individualized goals to prevent worsening disparities in diabetes outcomes.

Novel Therapeutics for Diabetes: Uptake, Usage Trends, and Comparative Effectiveness

The number of available therapies for treating type 2 diabetes has grown considerably in recent years. This growth has been fueled by availability of newer medications, whose benefits and risks have not been fully established. In this study, we review and synthesize the existing literature on the uptake, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of novel antidiabetic agents. Specifically, we focus on three drug classes that were introduced in the market recently: thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Not surprisingly, we find that the usage trends reflect the efficacy and safety profile of these novel drugs. The use of TZDs increased initially but decreased after a black-box warning was issued for rosiglitazone in 2007 that highlighted the cardiovascular risks associated with using the drug. Conversely, DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists gained market shares due to their efficacy in glycemic control as an add-on treatment to metformin. DPP-4 inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed agents among the three novel drug classes, likely because they are relatively less expensive, have better safety profile, are administered orally, and are weight neutral. Sitagliptin was the most preferred DPP-4 inhibitor. The level of evidence on the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost implications of using novel antidiabetic agents remains low and further studies with long-term follow-ups are needed.

Effect of Race and Health Insurance on Health Disparities: Results from the National Health Interview Survey 2010

Significant race-related disparities persist in the U.S. regarding access to health services. Initiatives to reduce such disparities have often focused on expanding health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations. Based on our analysis of 2010 data from the National Health Interview Survey, we found that race is a much greater factor than insurance status in accounting for disparities in access to health services. Expanding health insurance through reform initiatives such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may have relatively little impact on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the US.

Effectiveness of a combination of ezetimibe and statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multiple comorbidities: A 6-year population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND The clinical benefits of a combination of statins and ezetimibe in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were observed in a clinical trial. However, little is known regarding the effectiveness of using statins with or without ezetimibe in patients with ACS and multiple comorbidities in real-world clinical practice. METHODS This is a nationwide population-based cohort study using Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 212,110 patients with ACS who had been discharged after their first ACS events between 2006 and 2010 were enrolled. A propensity score matching approach was used to create matched cohorts for adjusting potential confounders. Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to estimate the risk of re-hospitalization for ACS and revascularization. RESULTS Patients in the statins-plus-ezetimibe group had a significantly lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.69) and revascularization (HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.63-0.76) than those in the statins-alone group. In the statins-plus-ezetimibe group, female patients had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS than male patients did, and patients without diabetes mellitus had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS than did patients with diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS Patients with ACS and multiple comorbidities receiving a combination therapy of statins and ezetimibe had a lower risk of re-hospitalization for ACS and revascularization than those receiving statins alone. Significant interaction effects were observed between combination with ezetimibe, sex, and diabetes mellitus.