Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Fewer Canadian Patients With Diabetes Meet Treatment Targets

 Fewer patients with type 2 diabetes in Canada are achieving target numbers for blood pressure, statin use, and use of other important medications, according to a new report.

Between 2015 and 2020, target achievement declined for these critical measurements and was considered suboptimal across all groups, regardless of age or sex.

Dr Darren Lau

"Diabetes is incredibly common, and knowing how close — or how far — we are from meeting these targets is really important to see how we're doing as providers and as a healthcare system," study author Darren Lau, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, told Medscape Medical News.

"In Canada, diabetes target achievement hadn't really been examined across provinces since 2013, though there have been some single-province studies," he said. "This not only made it difficult to know how well we were doing, but also made things like writing proposals for improving diabetes care challenging. Before we could think about moving forward, we had to know where we stood."

The study was published January 9 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

A1c Control Improved

To reduce the risks of cardiovascular and microvascular complications among patients with type 2 diabetes, national guidelines recommend treatment targets for glycated hemoglobin (A1c), blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and use of prescription medications such as statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). In 2013, 50% of patients met targets for A1c, 57% met targets for LDL-C, and 36% met targets for blood pressure. About 13% met all three targets.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 32,503 patients in 2015 and 44,930 patients in 2020 using electronic medical record data from primary care practices in five provinces in the National Diabetes Repository. The research team estimated the frequency at which adults with diabetes met treatment targets, including A1c less than or equal to 7%, blood pressure less 130/80 mm Hg, and LDL-C less than 2 mmol/L. They grouped achievement of diabetes targets by age and sex and compared between groups with adjustment for cardiovascular comorbidities.

In 2020, the average age of patients was 62 years, and 52.4% were men. Most patients were from Ontario (61.6%), Alberta (21.6%), and Manitoba (14.4%). Compared with patients aged 65-79 years, younger patients were more likely to be smokers and less likely to have comorbidities. Men had coronary artery disease more often than women and were more likely to take sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Women under age 40 years and between ages 40-65 were more likely to take glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Across all groups, target achievement in 2020 ranged from 51.5%–66.4% for A1c, 40.1%–49.2% for blood pressure, and 26.8%–68.8% for LDL-C. Achievement of all three targets ranged from 7.8%–20.6%, remaining similarly low from 2015 to 2020.

By sex, target A1c levels were achieved for 63.8% of women and 58.9% of men. Blood pressure targets were achieved for 45.6% of women and 43.1% of men. LDL-C targets were achieved for 45.8% of women and 59.4% of men. All three treatment targets were achieved for 13.3% of women and 16.5% of men. About 45.3% of women and 54% of men used statins, and 46.5% of women and 51.9% of men used ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Target achievement was typically higher among older adults, except for blood pressure control. Men were more likely to achieve the LDL-C target and take a statin, ACE inhibitor, or ARB, whereas younger women were more likely to achieve A1c and blood pressure targets.

Using men aged 65-79 years as the reference group, adjusted odds ratios showed that A1c target achievement was better for women. Men under age 65 years had a lower A1c target achievement than older men.

In addition, women under age 40 years had the highest prevalence of blood pressure control, and men aged 40-64 years had the lowest. Achievement of the LDL-C target was highest in men aged 65-79 years and lower among younger and middle-aged adults of both sexes, particularly women. Use of statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs had similar patterns.

Overall, the relative odds of A1c control improved by 21% to 27% across age categories between 2015 and 2020. LDL-C target achievement remained consistent. However, blood pressure control declined across all age categories, and use of statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs declined across all ages, particularly for those under 40 years.

"It's hard to know why some things — blood pressure control, ACE inhibitor use, statin use — seem worse in 2020 than in 2015," Lau said. "It could be COVID. But there is also a pre-COVID study showing worsening blood pressure control outside of diabetes. I think we need to put common health concerns like diabetes and high blood pressure back in the spotlight."

Incomplete Measurements

Importantly, a large proportion of adults with diabetes were excluded from the analysis because they lacked one or more diabetes measures in the preceding 2 years, the study authors wrote. In 2020, the probability of having complete diabetes measurements ranged from 25% (in women under age 40 years) to 65% (in men between aged 65-79 years). Among patients under age 65 years, men were more likely to have measurements within 2 years than women. Adults with missing measurements were younger, were less likely to be on any class of diabetes medication, and had fewer physician visits.

"There's the 40% of adults with diabetes where we just couldn't find any recent measurements of the key diabetes targets," said Lau. "This is concerning, because just measuring blood sugar control, blood pressure, et cetera, is the starting point for diabetes care."

Future studies should examine why target achievement has declined and how to improve these critical factors, the authors wrote.

"Looking at target achievement was the easy part," Lau said. "The hard part is trying to make things better, because that involves the nitty-gritty work of finding providers and patients, asking what their priorities and problems are, and figuring out what changes can be made and how to make them stick."

The improvement in A1c control may reflect the increasing availability of hypoglycemia-neutral and weight-favorable medications, the study authors wrote, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists. However, the prescribing of these agents can be improved, they added.

Innovative Methods Needed

Dr Lawrence Leiter

Commenting on the study for Medscape, Lawrence Leiter, MDCM, director of the Lipid Clinic at St. Michael's Hospital and professor of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said, "While there has been much excitement over the past few years about the benefits of newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents (SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1-receptor agonists) on heart and kidney outcomes in our patients with diabetes, we must not neglect the benefits of control of the traditional risk factors in preventing the micro- and macrovascular complications of diabetes."

Leiter, who wasn't involved with this study, has served on the Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee and researched A1c target achievement in Ontario in recent years. He and his colleagues have noted the need for improvement and identified a range of barriers, including patient-centric factors and physician-associated therapeutic inertia.

"Our typical methods of knowledge translation (traditional CME, guidelines, etc.) have clearly not been sufficient to implement change," he said. "We must move to more innovative methods of CME, as well as system changes, to have greater impact."

The study was supported by research startup funds provided by the Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta. The authors declared funding from Novo Nordisk Alberta Diabetes Fund and Alberta College of Family Physicians. Leiter reported no relevant financial relationships.

CMAJ. Published January 9, 2023. Full text

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/987103

Graphite cut to Neutral from Buy by B of A

 Target to $3 from $7

https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=GRPH&p=d

Evolus: Higher prelim revenue, guidance

 

  • Q4 2022 Preliminary Unaudited Net Revenue of Approximately $43.6 Million, Up 26% from Q4 2021

  • Full-Year 2022 Preliminary Unaudited Net Revenue of Approximately $148.6 Million, Up 49% Over 2021

  • 2023 Net Revenue Expected to be $180 to $190 Million

  • Projecting Profitability, Positive Non-GAAP Operating Income1 in Q4 2023

  • Estimating Organic Net Revenue to Reach $500 Million by 2028, a 22% CAGR

Short-Course Apalutamide to Reduce Active Surveillance Attrition in Prostate Cancer

 A majority of men in active surveillance (AS) for early prostate cancer had negative biopsies after a 90-day course of apalutamide (Erleada), a small phase II trial showed.

Follow-up pathology showed no evidence of residual cancer in 13 of 22 evaluable patients following treatment with the androgen receptor inhibitor. The median time to a positive biopsy was 364 days, and the treatment was associated with favorable pathologic changes in patients with higher-risk features, such as grade group 2 (GG2) disease and high genomic risk.

The treatment was well tolerated and had minimal impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), reported Michael T. Schweizer, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues, in the Journal of Urology

opens in a new tab or window.

"While we acknowledge that a negative biopsy is not a validated proxy for long-term outcomes, this was felt to be a reasonable primary endpoint given that the majority of AS programs rely on pathological changes as a trigger to recommend definitive local treatment," the authors stated. "We acknowledge that the small sample size of this study is one of its primary limitations, which was further challenged by its premature termination. However, in spite of this shortcoming, we still detected a robust efficacy signal."

"Ultimately, large, randomized studies will be needed to evaluate if systemic therapies are useful in the management of patients with prostate cancer followed on AS."

Not Active Surveillance

The results added to evidence of potential benefits for hormonal therapy in active surveillance. The results compared favorably with previous studies of dutasteride

opens in a new tab or window (Avodart), leuprolideopens in a new tab or window, and enzalutamideopens in a new tab or window (Xtandi), showing negative biopsy rates at 12-18 months of 28%-45%.

Authors of an accompanying editorialopens in a new tab or window maintained that active surveillance is no longer active surveillance when a therapeutic intervention is introduced.

"The publication of these studies raises some critical questions about therapeutic intervention in men on AS," wrote Peter Lonergan, MD, and Louise C. McLoughlin, MBBCh, both of St. James's Hospital and Trinity College in Dublin. "First AS with a therapeutic intervention, such as an ARAT [androgen receptor axis-targeted agent], is active treatment, not surveillance. This strategy is, therefore, inconsistent with the principles of AS."

They also pointed out that a negative biopsy has yet to be proven as a valid surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in active surveillance. Finally, they asserted that androgen receptor-targeted therapies have "considerable financial- and treatment-related toxicities."

"However, we have to acknowledge that AS is not perfect," Lonergan and McLoughlin added. "Despite a large body of evidence supporting this strategy in low-risk disease, there remains significant regional variation in the uptake of AS, particularly in the U.S. Therefore, we should direct our attention to initiatives which increase the utilization of AS and decrease the overdiagnosis of low-risk disease."

Studies of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer have shown that 20%-50% of patients subsequently convert to local therapy (radiation or prostatectomy). Medical therapies offer an "appealing" option to decrease the rate of attrition, Schweizer's group noted. Apalutamide is an "ideal compound" to evaluate as a means of prolonging time to positive biopsy and associated dropout from active surveillance.

The authors reported findings from a phase II trial that evaluated the pathologic effects of a 3-month course of apalutamide on men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer enrolled in active surveillance. Risk was determined by clinical stage T1c disease, PSA <15 g/mL, GG2 in ≤50% of one core/site, and GG1 disease in all other cores.

Repeat MRI- or transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies was performed at the treating physician's discretion. Prostate biopsies were mandated at 365 and 730 days from enrollment. The primary endpoint was negative repeat biopsy at the end of the 90-day apalutamide treatment course.

Key Findings

The study had an accrual goal of 33 patients, but the enrollment ended prematurely because of slow accrual. Investigators enrolled 23 patients, who had a median time on active surveillance of 10.4 months at enrollment. A majority (n=13/23) of the patients had two or more prior positive biopsies while on active surveillance. All 23 participants completed the 90 days of treatment with apalutamide, and 22 underwent post-treatment biopsy.

Pathology results showed that 59% of the post-treatment biopsies showed no evidence of residual disease, significantly higher than an estimated rate of 20% predicted by statistical modeling (P<0.001). If 33 patients had been enrolled and all remaining patients had residual disease, the resulting negative biopsy rate (13/33, 39%) still would have exceeded the hypothesized rate (P=0.008).

All but one patient had a biopsy at day 365, and seven of 21 (33%) had no evidence of residual disease. Additionally, 19 patients had biopsies at day 730, and four (19%) had no residual disease. One patient had a positive biopsy at day 365 and a negative day-730 biopsy.

At day 91, all patients had a PSA decline exceeding 50% from enrollment and 15 (65%) had reductions of 90% or greater. PSA levels increased in all patients after discontinuation of apalutamide, and at 365 days, the median PSA value did not differ significantly from the baseline value. The median testosterone level increased significantly from baseline to day 91 (+275 ng/mL, P<0.001).

During a median follow-up of 753 days, five patients underwent definitive local therapy, four who had GG reclassification and one who opted for prostatectomy despite stable GG2 disease.

Adverse events were generally mild and consistent with known effects of apalutamide, the authors reported. Transient declines in several QoL scores occurred during the treatment period but returned to near baseline by day 180. No "clinically meaningful" changes in QoL occurred with the exception of a 13-point decline in the median score for energy/fatigue (P=0.01).

Disclosures

The study was supported by Janssen, NCI, the Canary Foundation, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Schweizer disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pharmin, Resverlogix, Zenith Epigenetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Immunomedics, Janssen, Pfizer, Madison Vaccines, Hoffman-La Roche, Tmunity, SignalOne Bio, and Ambrx.

Lonergan and McLoughlin disclosed relationships with industry.

Primary Source

Journal of Urology

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowSchweizer MT, et al "Pathological effects of apalutamide in lower-risk prostate cancer: Results from a phase II clinical trial" J Urol 2023; DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003038.

Secondary Source

Journal of Urology

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowLonergan PE and McLoughlin LC "Editorial Comment" J Urol 2023; DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003038.


https://www.medpagetoday.com/hematologyoncology/prostatecancer/102667

Record High in U.S. Put Off Medical Care Due to Cost in 2022

 The percentage of Americans reporting they or a family member postponed medical treatment in 2022 due to cost rose 12 points in one year, to 38%, the highest in Gallup’s 22-year trend.

Each year since 2001, Gallup has tracked Americans’ self-reports of delaying medical care in the past 12 months due to cost. The latest reading, from Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2, is the highest by five points and marks the sharpest year-over-year increase to date.

This change came amid the highest inflation rate in the U.S. in more than 40 years, which made 2022 a challenging year for many Americans. A majority of U.S. adults have said inflation is creating at least a moderate hardship for them. The public continues to view the state of the U.S. economy negatively, and Americans were more likely to name inflation as the most important problem facing the U.S. in 2022 than at any time since 1984.

The latest double-digit increase in delaying medical treatment came on the heels of two consecutive 26% readings during the COVID-19 pandemic that were the lowest since 2004. The previous high point in the trend was 33% in 2014 and 2019. An average 29% of U.S. adults reported putting off medical treatment because of cost between 2001 and 2021.

Americans were more than twice as likely to report the delayed treatment in their family was for a serious rather than a nonserious condition in 2022. In all, 27% said the treatment was for a “very” or “somewhat” serious condition or illness, while 11% said it was “not very” or “not at all” serious. Since 2004, more U.S. adults have said the medical care needed was for a serious than nonserious condition, but the 16-point gap in the perceived seriousness of forgone treatment in 2022 is the second largest on record to a 17-point gap in 2019.

Delayed Care Reports Differ by Income, Age, Gender

Lower-income adults, younger adults and women in the U.S. have consistently been more likely than their counterparts to say they or a family member have delayed care for a serious medical condition.

In 2022, Americans with an annual household income under $40,000 were nearly twice as likely as those with an income of $100,000 or more to say someone in their family delayed medical care for a serious condition (34% vs. 18%, respectively). Those with an income between $40,000 and less than $100,000 were similar to those in the lowest income group when it comes to postponing care, with 29% doing so.

Reports of putting off care for a serious condition are up 12 points among lower-income U.S. adults, up 11 points among those in the middle-income group and up seven points among those with a higher income. The latest readings for the middle- and upper-income groups are the highest on record or tied with the highest.

There were also significant age differences in reports of postponing care in 2022, with young and middle-aged adults much more likely than older adults to say they or a family member delayed medical care for a serious condition. This is likely due to the fact that Americans aged 65 and older are covered by Medicare.

A new high of 35% of adults aged 18 to 49 said they or someone in their family put off care, while 25% of those aged 50 to 64 and 13% of those aged 65 and older said the same. The readings are up 12 points among those younger than 50, up 10 points among 50- to 64-year-olds, and up six points among those aged 65 and older.

Looking at gender differences in 2022, 32% of women and 20% of men reported putting off medical treatment, representing a 12-point increase from 2021 for women and a five-point increase for men. The resulting 12-point gender gap is well above the seven-point average gender gap since 2001.

Bottom Line

With high inflation creating moderate to severe hardship for a majority of Americans in the second half of 2022, their reports of delaying medical care in general due to cost -- as well as delaying care for a serious condition -- rose sharply to new highs. Young adults, those in lower-income households and women were especially likely to say they or a family member had put off medical care.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468053/record-high-put-off-medical-care-due-cost-2022.aspx

Nevada county health board to consider banning COVID, flu vaccines

 The Elko County Board of Health is scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss and consider placing a moratorium on COVID-19 and flu vaccines in the county.

The board also will consider discontinuing local advertising for COVID-19 and flu vaccines, pending “further investigation and results of the Florida Supreme Court case to investigate the wrong doing related to COVID-19 vaccines,” the agenda says.

In December, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis requested that the Florida Supreme Court convene a grand jury to investigate any possible side effects of COVID-19 vaccines and to get more information from pharmaceutical companies.

Jon Karr, an Elko County Board of Health commissioner, said he thinks those agenda items never should have been put on the agenda and resulted from a miscommunication.

A concerned resident spoke about possible problems with vaccines, such as heart problems and inflammation, Karr said. The resident pointed to DeSantis’ efforts to investigate COVID-19 vaccines as well as right-wing editorials about vaccines, he said.

“We’ve already been notified by legal that we don’t have the authority to issue a moratorium,” Karr said. “I believe it’s just a miscommunication, and I’m hoping it gets tabled indefinitely.”

Karr does not see the agenda items moving forward, as the commissioners do not have the right to issue a moratorium or control advertising in the county.

Delmo Andreozzi, another commissioner on the Elko Board of Health, also does not think the board has the authority to issue a moratorium on administering COVID-19 vaccines. “We do not regulate or have any direct oversight of the health care industry,” Andreozzi said in an email. He thinks the board of health could, however, take an action stating that the county would not expend any county resources or its own advertising for vaccines.

“As I am only one board member, I can only speak for myself,” Andreozzi said in an email. “It is my own personal belief that an individual’s health care decisions should only be made in consultation with that individual’s own medical provider for ANY and ALL health care matters.”

State encourages vaccine

Nevada’s health departments continue to encourage Nevadans to get vaccinated and talk to their doctors.

Dave Sheehan, public information officer at the Southern Nevada Health District, said in an email that health officials recommend people take steps to protect themselves and others since respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 and flu continue to circulate in the community.

“Staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines is one of the most effective ways to protect against serious illness,” Sheehan said in the email. “The Health District also recommends people get their seasonal flu vaccine, wash their hands often with soap and running water, get tested for COVID-19 if needed and stay home if they are sick.”

The Nevada Department of Health and Human Services’ immunization program encourages Nevadans to speak with a trusted health care provider about vaccinations.

“Throughout the pandemic, much has been learned, and information is available for individuals to make the best choices to protect their health and the health of their families,” said Marissa Medeiros, public information officer for the state’s immunization program, in an email.

The meeting, originally set to take place at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, is now scheduled for 3:30 p.m. and can be watched via Zoom.

“People can get the vaccine, or they can choose not to get the vaccine,” Karr said. “You have the right to work with your doctor and choose which vaccines you should and should not get. … Not some rural commissioners who have more insight.”

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/elko-county-health-board-to-consider-banning-covid-flu-vaccines-2713830/

Urgent Care Center Fail-Safe Is Failing Americans

 Would the "American Girl Doll Hospital" accept Medicare and Medicaid patients? This question was posited by a viral tweet

opens in a new tab or window a few weeks ago. My answer? Not if doll hospitals operate anything like American urgent care centers.

Data from CDC released in late December showed that U.S. life expectancyopens in a new tab or window had dropped to its lowest in 2 decades. With an average of 96 excess deathsopens in a new tab or window per 100,000 people, the U.S. leads all developed nationsopens in a new tab or window in deaths that can be prevented by timely intervention, compared to just 83 in the U.K. and 65 in France. COVID-19 deaths certainly contributed to this decrease, but this is not the full picture. While the entire globe felt COVID-19's burden, some experts suggestopens in a new tab or window the precipitous drop in the U.S. is more so led by our health system's inability to provide universal health coverage, ensure equitable access, and address administrative inefficiencies. These factors make it harder to mitigate not only COVID-19 deaths, but also other preventable deaths from accidental injuries, drug overdoses, and chronic conditionsopens in a new tab or window, such as heart disease.

These shortcomings in coverage, access, and efficiency are exacerbated, at least in part, by a convoluted two-tiered system to address medical emergencies. While "emergency room (ER)" and "urgent care center (UCC)" may sound like semantic preference, in reality, the name has profound implications for our patients' bodies and wallets.

Urgent Care Centers Versus Emergency Rooms

At a surface level, ERs vary by stateopens in a new tab or window, but must meet rigorous national-level emergency treatment guidelinesopens in a new tab or window set by HHS; they are typically open 24/7, always staffed with physicians, and equipped to handle a wide range of injuries. However, these supposed distinctions often blend with the characteristics of UCCs. Unlike ERs, UCC have no formal guidelinesopens in a new tab or window nationally, and states allow operation through an individual physician's emergency medicine license, a parent hospital's license, or even as a professional LLC if the owners are physicians. Even without similar certifications, UCCs in some cases still market themselves as open 24/7, having on-call physicians, and possessing state-of-the-art technology.

The real differences between the two types of facilities? It comes down to admissions and billing. Unlike ERs, which admit all patients under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, UCCs can decline to see patients based on insurance status, ability to pay, or religious beliefs.

What does this mean for our patients? It means when they walk into a UCC, regardless of their dire state, staff can refuse to admit them arbitrarilyopens in a new tab or window. If they have Medicare or Medicaid, they can be rejected. If their insurance is out-of-network, they may be unknowingly burdened with a massive ambulance billopens in a new tab or window for transfer to an ER. They may be refused critical reproductive health services based on the religious affiliationopens in a new tab or window of the center. Furthermore, staff can decide whether they want to treat the patient's injury by deeming it too severe or too minor. Not to mention, the patient probably won't even have a UCC if they live in a poor neighborhoodopens in a new tab or window or rural areaopens in a new tab or window. The U.S. is the only developed nationopens in a new tab or window with this type of urgent care system.

Urgent Care Centers Fill Holes in a Broken System

Ultimately, UCCs are for-profit entities -- and business is booming. With lower operating costs than hospitals, UCCs are attractive investment vehicles and prime for private equity consolidationopens in a new tab or window. Some companies are going on shopping sprees; for example, HCA Healthcare purchased 24 UCCs in 2019 alone. Profits are high in part because UCCs now fill the gap left by primary care shortages. UCC utilization is skyrocketingopens in a new tab or window, increasing by more than 1,700% over the previous decade, as other healthcare safety nets are chipped away. Many policymakers on both sides of the aisle are giving up on meaningful healthcare reform, and primary care usage has been on the declineopens in a new tab or window. This trend worsened during COVID-19, prompting the American Academy of Family Physicians to issue a letter to HHSopens in a new tab or window warning of, "rapid collapse of the community-based primary care system in many parts of the country." As a result, UCCs must step in as a catch-all; but the fail-safe itself is failing to care for us.

I've seen this firsthand. This summer, my mom was refused care for a non-emergency panic attack at a UCC in my old neighborhood of Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. During the crisis, my Google search for an "emergency room near me" returned both a nearby UCC and an ER a bit further away. Both are 24/7 medical centers, and the UCC's website provided zero details to distinguish it from the ER. On arrival, the UCC refused to see us due to out-of-network insurance. Pleading to be let in, I offered to pay out-of-pocket, but the facility was unrelenting. The insurance company went as far as to demand my mom get on the phone to purchase a new plan, even though she was unfit to speak. Eventually, instead of letting us through the doors, the UCC called an ambulance to transport my mom from the lobby to the ER across town, saddling us with an additional ambulance bill. How can such an occurrence transpire regularly in the capital of the wealthiest nation on Earth? In my opinion, nowhere are our health system's shortcomings more glaring than at UCCs.

Potential Policy Solutions

What can be done to provide better urgent care? Creating an ER system based on the model in some European countries where you can walk into any emergency or urgent facility without worry of being turned away would solve many problems. For example, accident and emergency centers and urgent treatment centersopens in a new tab or window in the U.K. are similar to American ERs and UCCs, respectively. However, the National Health Service (NHS) requires both centers to see all patients who walk through the door, even non-British citizens and tourists. The NHS sets strict guidelinesopens in a new tab or window to ensure urgent treatment centers across the country operate at a similar level of quality. Furthermore, patients can dial 111 and speak with an operator who will direct them toward accident and emergency centers or urgent treatment, so the patient doesn't have to scour Google themselves. We have much to learn about UCC efficiencies from nations across the pond.

Since our U.S. political parties love patchwork solutions, reform will likely start incrementally at the state level. Health policy experts recommend

opens in a new tab or window states adopt stricter licensing and accreditation requirements to standardize care across UCCs. Following Vermont's lead, states should take steps to prevent UCCs from turning away Medicaid and uninsured patients. Lastly, UCCs must do a better job of coordinating care with local hospitals and community health systems. With these initial steps, the U.S. may have a shot at starting to reverse its horrific drop in life expectancy.

Khaqan Ahmadopens in a new tab or window is a first-year medical student at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. He previously worked as a health policy consultant in Washington, D.C.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/102673