Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Helping Patients Engage in Specialty Care

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.Part 4: "Helping Patients Engage in Specialty Care"Specialty care actors are increasingly addressing the social determinants of health with community outreach, patient navigation, and patient support services

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Ensuring High-Quality Specialty Care

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.Part 3: "Ensuring High-Quality Specialty Care"New efforts to mitigate provider implicit bias, establish culturally-competent care, and leverage quality improvement approaches help identify and eliminate disparities in care

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Striving for Equity in Specialty Care

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Part 1: "Striving for Equity in Specialty Care"A complex set of barriers to specialty care create Health inequities for many Americans, but the current healthcare landscape provides an opportune moment to address this challenge

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Increasing Specialty Care Availability

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.Part 2: "Increasing Specialty Care Availability"Solutions such as telemedicine, innovative partnerships between specialists and primary care physicians, and centralized local referral networks improve access to specialty care

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Call to Action for a System-wide Focus on Equity

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.Part 5: "Call to Action for a System-wide Focus on Equity"These solutions create value not only for patients, but also for health care providers and public and private payers.  Each of these actors have a role to play in scaling and sustaining the health equity solutions.

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Striving for Equity in Specialty Care Full Report

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.

Behavioral, Molecular, and Morphological Evidence for a Hybrid Zone between Chrysochus auratus and C. cobaltinus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

In this article, we describe a hybrid zone between the chrysomelid beetles, Chrysochus auratus (F.), andC. cobaltinus LeConte, which have historically been considered as having allopatric distributions. By combining field studies with surveys of museum specimens, we documented that in western North America there are two regions in which these beetles are sympatric, and four additional regions in which populations of the two species are Washington, we found an ≈25 km wide area of sympatry in which the two species freely interbreed. Morphological and allozyme differences between the species allowed us to demonstrate that individuals with intermediate coloration in this area are indeed hybrids; all 22 putative hybrids we assayed for allozyme variation were heterozygous at each of three species-specific loci. Museum specimens revealed that the two species have been hybridizing in this region at least since 1952. Within the hybrid zone, ≈10-15% of the beetles is apparently F1 hybrids. At one focal site, 22.9% of all matings involved heterospecific pairs and 20.8% of all matings involved at least one hybrid individual. Although we found no molecular evidence of introgression between the two species, morphometric results and preliminary ecological data suggest possible past introgression or weak ongoing introgression. We discuss the implications of our findings for the specific status of these two species. This system appears well suited to provide answers to long-standing questions concerning the evolution of premating barriers between hybridizing species. In addition, hybridization between these two beetle species with differing host ranges will allow us to test the hypothesis that ecologically significant traits such as diet breadth can be gained via introgression

Identification of a transporter complex responsible for the cytosolic entry of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates

Nitrogen-containing-bisphosphonates (N-BPs) are widely prescribed to treat osteoporosis and other bone-related diseases. Although previous studies established that N-BPs function by inhibiting the mevalonate pathway in osteoclasts, the mechanism by which N-BPs enter the cytosol from the extracellular space to reach their molecular target is not understood. Here we implemented a CRISPRi-mediated genome-wide screen and identified SLC37A3 (solute carrier family 37 member A3) as a gene required for the action of N-BPs in mammalian cells. We observed that SLC37A3 forms a complex with ATRAID (all-trans retinoic acid-induced differentiation factor), a previously identified genetic target of N-BPs. SLC37A3 and ATRAID localize to lysosomes and are required for releasing N-BP molecules that have trafficked to lysosomes through fluid-phase endocytosis into the cytosol. Our results elucidate the route by which N-BPs are delivered to their molecular target, addressing a key aspect of the mechanism of action of N-BPs that may have significant clinical relevance

Impact of alpha-tocopherol deficiency and supplementation on sacrocaudalis and gluteal muscle fiber histopathology and morphology in horses.

BackgroundA subset of horses deficient in alpha-tocopherol (α-TP) develop muscle atrophy and vitamin E-responsive myopathy (VEM) characterized by mitochondrial alterations in the sacrocaudalis dorsalis medialis muscle (SC).ObjectivesTo quantify muscle histopathologic abnormalities in subclinical α-TP deficient horses before and after α-TP supplementation and compare with retrospective (r)VEM cases.AnimalsProspective study; 16 healthy α-TP-deficient Quarter Horses. Retrospective study; 10 retrospective vitamin E-responsive myopathy (rVEM) cases .MethodsBlood, SC, and gluteus medius (GM) biopsy specimens were obtained before (day 0) and 56 days after 5000 IU/450 kg horse/day PO water dispersible liquid α-TP (n = 8) or control (n = 8). Muscle fiber morphology and mitochondrial alterations were compared in samples from days 0 and 56 and in rVEM cases.ResultsMitochondrial alterations more common than our reference range (<2.5% affected fibers) were present in 3/8 control and 4/8 treatment horses on day 0 in SC but not in GM (mean, 2.2; range, 0%-10% of fibers). Supplementation with α-TP for 56 days did not change the percentage of fibers with mitochondrial alterations or anguloid atrophy, or fiber size in GM or SC. Clinical rVEM horses had significantly more mitochondrial alterations (rVEM SC, 13% ± 7%; GM, 3% ± 2%) and anguloid atrophy compared to subclinical day 0 horses.Conclusions and clinical importanceClinically normal α-TP-deficient horses can have mitochondrial alterations in the SC that are less severe than in atrophied VEM cases and do not resolve after 56 days of α-TP supplementation. Preventing α-TP deficiency may be of long-term importance for mitochondrial viability

Effect of Health Insurance on the Use and Provision of Maternal Health Services and Maternal and Neonatal Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Financial barriers can affect timely access to maternal health services. Health insurance can influence the use and quality of these services and potentially improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence on health insurance and its effects on the use and provision of maternal health services and on maternal and neonatal health outcomes in middle- and low-income countries. Studies were identified through a literature search in key databases and consultation with experts in healthcare financing and maternal health. Twenty-nine articles met the review criteria of focusing on health insurance and its effect on the use or quality of maternal health services, or maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Sixteen studies assessed demand-side effects of insurance, eight focused on supply-side effects, and the remainder addressed both. Geographically, the studies provided evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (n=11), Asia (n=9), Latin America (n=8), and Turkey. The studies included examples from national or social insurance schemes (n=7), government-run public health insurance schemes (n=4), community-based health insurance schemes (n=11), and private insurance (n=3). Half of the studies used econometric analyses while the remaining provided descriptive statistics or qualitative results. There is relatively consistent evidence that health insurance is positively correlated with the use of maternal health services. Only four studies used methods that can establish this causal relationship. Six studies presented suggestive evidence of overprovision of caesarean sections in response to providers\u2019 payment incentives through health insurance. Few studies focused on the relationship between health insurance and the quality of maternal health services or maternal and neonatal health outcomes. The available evidence on the quality and health outcomes is inconclusive, given the differences in measurement, contradictory findings, and statistical limitations. Consistent with economic theories, the studies identified a positive relationship between health insurance and the use of maternal health services. However, more rigorous causal methods are needed to identify the extent to which the use of these services increases among the insured. Better measurement of quality and the use of cross-country analyses would solidify the evidence on the impact of insurance on the quality of maternal health services and maternal and neonatal health outcomes