Self-reported colorectal cancer screening of Medicare beneficiaries in family medicine vs. internal medicine practices in the United States: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The benefit of screening for decreasing the risk of death from colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown, yet many patients in primary care are still not undergoing screening according to guidelines. There are known variations in delivery of preventive health care services among primary care physicians. This study compared self-reported CRC screening rates and patient awareness of the need for CRC screening of patients receiving care from family medicine (FPs) vs. internal medicine (internists) physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized beneficiaries who received medical care from FPs or internists in 2006 (using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey). The main outcome was the percentage of patients screened in 2007. We also examined the percentage of patients offered screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients of FPs, compared to those of internists, were less likely to have received an FOBT kit or undergone home FOBT, even after accounting for patients' characteristics. Compared to internists, FPs' patients were more likely to have heard of colonoscopy, but were less likely to receive a screening colonoscopy recommendation (18% vs. 27%), or undergo a colonoscopy (43% vs. 46%, adjusted odds ratios [AOR], 95% confidence interval [CI]-- 0.65, 0.51-0.81) or any CRC screening (52% vs. 60%, AOR, CI--0.80, 0.68-0.94). Among subgroups examined, higher income beneficiaries receiving care from internists had the highest screening rate (68%), while disabled beneficiaries receiving care from FPs had the lowest screening rate (34%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients cared for by FPs had a lower rate of screening compared to those cared for by internists, despite equal or higher levels of awareness; a difference that remained statistically significant after accounting for socioeconomic status and access to healthcare. Both groups of patients remained below the national goal of 70 percent.</p

Body Mass Index and Employment-Based Health Insurance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Obese workers incur greater health care costs than normal weight workers. Possibly viewed by employers as an increased financial risk, they may be at a disadvantage in procuring employment that provides health insurance. This study aims to evaluate the association between body mass index [BMI, weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters] of employees and their likelihood of holding jobs that include employment-based health insurance [EBHI].</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used the 2004 Household Components of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We utilized logistic regression models with provision of EBHI as the dependent variable in this descriptive analysis. The key independent variable was BMI, with adjustments for the domains of demographics, social-economic status, workplace/job characteristics, and health behavior/status. BMI was classified as normal weight (18.5–24.9), overweight (25.0–29.9), or obese (≥ 30.0). There were 11,833 eligible respondents in the analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among employed adults, obese workers [adjusted probability (AP) = 0.62, (0.60, 0.65)] (<it>P </it>= 0.005) were more likely to be employed in jobs with EBHI than their normal weight counterparts [AP = 0.57, (0.55, 0.60)]. Overweight workers were also more likely to hold jobs with EBHI than normal weight workers, but the difference did not reach statistical significance [AP = 0.61 (0.58, 0.63)] (<it>P </it>= 0.052). There were no interaction effects between BMI and gender or age.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this nationally representative sample, we detected an association between workers' increasing BMI and their likelihood of being employed in positions that include EBHI. These findings suggest that obese workers are more likely to have EBHI than other workers.</p