Publications

IMPORTANCE: Private equity acquisitions of health care facilities have rapidly increased over the past decade. However, little is known about the effects of private equity acquisitions of US hospitals on patient care experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the acquisition of hospitals by private equity firms was associated with changes in measures of patient-reported experience compared with matched control hospitals from 2008 through 2019.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study identified 73 US hospitals newly acquired by private equity firms and 293 matched control (nonacquired) US hospitals from 2008 through 2019. An event study, difference-in-differences design was used to evaluate changes in patient experiences measures from 3 years before to 3 years after private equity acquisition.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were 2 global measures of patient-reported care experience from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which included patients' overall hospital rating and willingness to recommend the hospital. Secondary outcomes included the 7 other HCAHPS measures encompassing clinical process, communication, and environmental measures.

RESULTS: There were 73 private equity-acquired hospitals and 293 matched control hospitals. The percentage of patients rating hospitals as a 9 or 10, on a scale of 0 to 10, decreased at private equity-acquired hospitals (65.0% before acquisition and 65.2% after acquisition) when compared with control hospitals (66.2% to 69.2%) during the postacquisition period relative to the preacquisition period with a difference-in-differences estimate of -2.4 percentage points (95% CI, -3.9 to -0.9). In addition, the percentage of patients who would definitely recommend the hospital also decreased at private equity-acquired hospitals (66.9% before acquisition and 65.5% after acquisition) compared with control hospitals (68.2% to 69.3%) with a difference-in-difference estimate of -2.1 percentage points (95% CI, -3.6 to -0.7). For both of these global measures of patient experience, the difference between private equity-acquired and control hospitals increased over time and was largest in year 3 after acquisition (-5.2 percentage points [95% CI, -8.8 to -1.5] and -4.4 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -0.70] for each measure, respectively). For secondary measures of patient care experience, there was a decrease in patient-reported responsiveness of hospital staff at private equity-acquired hospitals compared with control hospitals (-1.3 percentage points [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]), but no differential change across other measures of clinical process, communication, and environment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patient care experience worsened after private equity acquisition of hospitals. These findings raise concern about the implications of private equity acquisitions on patient care experience at US hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: In the 2020 Bostock v Clayton County decision, the US Supreme Court extended employment nondiscrimination protection to sexual minority adults. The health impacts of this ruling and similar policies related to sexual orientation-based discrimination are not currently known.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in mental health following the Bostock decision among sexual minority adults in states that gained employment nondiscrimination protection (intervention states) compared with those in states with protections already in place (control states).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used 2018-2022 data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate changes in mental health after the Bostock decision by comparing sexual minority adults (aged ≥18 years and identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual) in 12 intervention states with those residing in 9 control states. Models were estimated for all participants and separately for employed participants. Data were analyzed between February and September 2024.

EXPOSURE: Residing in a state that gained employment nondiscrimination protection after the Bostock decision.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was number of poor mental health days during the past 30 days, and the secondary outcome was severe mental distress (defined as 14 or more past-month poor mental health days).

RESULTS: Of 597 462 participants (306 365 in intervention states [77.7% aged 18-64 years and 22.3% aged ≥65 years; 51.7% female] and 291 097 in control states [77.5% aged 18-64 years and 22.5% aged ≥65 years; 50.6% female]), 5.1% in intervention states and 6.0% in control states self-identified as sexual minority adults. The mean (SE) number of past-month poor mental health days was unchanged after the Bostock decision among sexual minority adults in both intervention (from 8.70 [0.27] to 9.59 [0.24] days; adjusted difference, 0.57 [95% CI, -1.02 to 2.16] days) and control (from 8.53 [0.21] to 10.15 [0.20] days; adjusted difference, 1.17 [95% CI, -0.46 to 2.79] days) states, resulting in no differential change between the 2 groups (difference-in-differences, -0.60 days; 95% CI, -1.25 to 0.06 days). Among the subset of employed sexual minority adults, the mean (SE) number of poor mental health days did not change in intervention states (from 7.99 [0.38] to 8.83 [0.30] days; adjusted difference, 0.87 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.22] days) but increased in control states (from 7.75 [0.27] to 9.75 [0.26] days; adjusted difference, 1.84 [95% CI, 0.44-3.24] days). These findings corresponded to a significant relative reduction in poor mental health days among employed sexual minority adults in intervention vs control states (difference-in-differences, -0.97 days; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.21 days). Mean (SE) rates of severe mental distress increased less among employed sexual minority adults in intervention (from 26.35% [1.59%] to 29.92% [1.46%]; adjusted difference, 6.81% [95% CI, 2.20%-11.42%]) vs control (from 26.53% [1.27%] to 34.26% [1.16%]; adjusted difference, 10.30% [95% CI, 5.99%-14.61%) states, also corresponding to a significant relative reduction among employed sexual minority adults (difference-in-differences, -3.49%; 95% CI, -6.71% to -0.27%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings show significant relative reductions in past-month poor mental health days and severe mental distress among employed sexual minority adults after the implementation of a federal ban on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Larger and more consistent mental health benefits observed among sexual minority adults in the workforce underscore the importance of broadening protections to other social domains.

BACKGROUND: The federal government spends billions of dollars per year on payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans based, in part, on beneficiaries' risk scores. Despite this, little is known about the true burden of chronic medical conditions among MA beneficiaries compared with those in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the prevalence of chronic medical conditions is higher among MA compared with FFS beneficiaries.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional.

SETTING: Population based.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 65 years or older enrolled in MA or FFS Medicare.

MEASUREMENTS: Using direct physical examination and laboratory data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015 to 2018), we compared the age- and sex-standardized prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease between MA and FFS beneficiaries.

RESULTS: The unweighted study population included 2446 respondents corresponding to a weighted total of 45 426 711 adults (34.4% MA, 65.6% FFS Medicare). The prevalence of obesity (41.1% vs. 40.6%; standardized difference [SDiff], 0.48 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, -5.2 to 6.2 pp]), hypertension (70.9% vs. 71.0%; SDiff, -0.05 pp [CI, -5.8 to 5.7 pp]), hyperlipidemia (79.4% vs. 82.3%; SDiff, -2.86 pp [CI, -7.0 to 1.3 pp]), and chronic kidney disease (19.2% vs. 22.8%; SDiff, -3.48 pp [CI, -9.2 to 2.3 pp]) was not higher among MA beneficiaries compared with FFS beneficiaries. However, the prevalence of diabetes was higher in MA (33.3% vs. 26.3%; SDiff, 7.00 pp [CI, 3.3 to 10.7 pp]).

LIMITATION: Differences in the severity of specific medical conditions between groups could not be assessed.

CONCLUSION: In this nationally representative study from 2015 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease was not higher among MA compared with FFS beneficiaries; however, the prevalence of diabetes was higher among MA beneficiaries.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and American Heart Association (AHA).

Despite advancements in diagnostics and therapeutics for cardiovascular disease, significant health disparities persist among patients from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups, women, individuals who are socioeconomically under-resourced or underinsured, and those living in rural communities. While transcatheter interventions have revolutionized the treatment landscape in cardiology, populations bearing the greatest burden of disease continue to face inequitable access and poorer outcomes. A notable gap in the literature concerns the role of modern approaches to cardiovascular device innovation in shaping and perpetuating health disparities. Health equity has been declared one of the top strategic initiatives for 2022 to 2025 by the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health, underscoring the need for greater attention, dialogue, and targeted interventions in this space. This narrative review uses the cardiovascular device life cycle as a conceptual framework to enhance understanding and guide future efforts to mitigate disparities in the field of interventional cardiology. Drawing on illustrative examples from interventional cardiology, we examine current practices in cardiovascular device regulation and approval, clinical trial evaluation, adoption patterns, and postprocedural outcomes with the aim of uncovering potential mechanisms of disparities and identifying opportunities for targeted interventions.

IMPORTANCE: Improving cardiovascular health in rural areas is a national priority in the US. However, little is known about the current state of rural cardiovascular health and the underlying drivers of any rural-urban disparities.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiovascular diseases between rural and urban US adults and to evaluate the extent to which health care access, lifestyle factors, and social risk factors contribute to any rural-urban differences.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This nationally representative cross-sectional study analyzed data from US adults aged 20 years or older residing in rural vs urban areas using the 2022 National Health Interview Survey. Data were analyzed between August 2024 and February 2025.

EXPOSURE: County-level rurality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were age-standardized rates of cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diabetes) and cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease [CHD] and stroke).

RESULTS: The study population consisted of 27 172 adults, including 4256 adults (14.0%) residing in rural areas, 14 741 (54.8%) in small or medium metropolitan areas, and 8175 (31.2%) in urban areas. Mean (SD) participant age was 49.1 (17.8) years, and 4399 participants (50.8%) were female. Compared with their urban counterparts, rural adults were more likely to smoke, be insufficiently physically active, and have more social risk factors. Age-standardized rates of cardiometabolic risk factors were significantly higher in rural areas, including hypertension (37.1% vs 30.9%; rate ratio [RR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), hyperlipidemia (29.3% vs 26.7%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.18), obesity (41.1% vs 30.0%; RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.47), and diabetes (11.2% vs 9.8%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). The same pattern was observed for CHD (6.7% vs 4.3%; RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.85), but no differences were observed for stroke. The magnitude of rural-urban disparities was largest among young adults (aged 20-39 years) for hypertension (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.12-1.86), obesity (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.77), and diabetes (RR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.54-4.38). Rural-urban disparities in cardiovascular health were not meaningfully attenuated after adjustment for measures of health care access (insurance coverage, usual source of care, and recent health care utilization) and lifestyle factors (smoking and physical activity). However, accounting for social risk factors (poverty, education level, food insecurity, and home ownership) completely attenuated rural-urban disparities in hypertension (adjusted RR [aRR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93-1.06), diabetes (aRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15), and CHD (aRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.29), but only partially attenuated disparities in obesity (aRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.39).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This national cross-sectional study found substantial rural-urban disparities in cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiovascular diseases, which were largest among younger adults and almost entirely explained by social risk factors. These findings suggest that efforts to improve socioeconomic conditions in rural communities may be critical to address the rural-urban gap in cardiovascular health.