Literature DB >> 28351763

Does Universal Insurance Mitigate Racial Differences in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy?

Anju Ranjit1, Meesha Sharma2, Aasia Romano3, Wei Jiang2, Bart Staat4, Tracey Koehlmoos5, Adil H Haider2, Sarah E Little6, Catherine T Witkop5, Julian N Robinson5, Sarah L Cohen7.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To determine if racial differences exist in receipt of minimally invasive hysterectomy (defined as total vaginal hysterectomy [TVH] and total laparoscopic hysterectomy [TLH]) compared with an open approach (total abdominal hysterectomy [TAH]) within a universally insured patient population.
DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING: The 2006-2010 national TRICARE (universal insurance coverage to US Armed Services members and their dependents) longitudinal claims data. PATIENTS: Women aged 18 years and above who underwent hysterectomy stratified into 4 racial groups: white, African American, Asian, and "other." INTERVENTION: Receipt of hysterectomy (TAH, TVH, or TLH).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used risk-adjusted multinomial logistic regression models to determine the relative risk ratios of receipt of TVH and TLH compared with TAH in each racial group compared with referent category of white patients for benign conditions. Among 33 015 patients identified, 60.82% (n = 20 079) were white, 26.11% (n = 8621) African American, 4.63% (n = 1529) Asian, and 8.44% (n = 2786) other. Most hysterectomies (83.9%) were for benign indications. Nearly 42% of hysterectomies (n = 13 917) were TAH, 27% (n = 8937) were TVH, and 30% (n = 10 161) were TLH. Overall, 36.37% of white patients received TAH compared with 53.40% of African American patients and 51.01% of Asian patients (p < .001). On multinomial logistic regression analyses, African American patients were significantly less likely than white patients to receive TVH (relative risk ratio [RRR], .63; 95% confidence interval [CI], .58-.69) or TLH (RRR, .65; 95% CI, .60-.71) compared with TAH. Similarly, Asian patients were less likely than white patients to receive TVH (RRR, .71; 95% CI, .60-.84) or TLH (RRR, .69; 95% CI, .58-.83) compared with TAH. Analyses by benign indications for surgery showed similar trends.
CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that racial minority patients are less likely to receive a minimally invasive surgical approach compared with an open abdominal approach despite universal insurance coverage. Further work is warranted to better understand factors other than insurance access that may contribute to racial differences in surgical approach to hysterectomies.
Copyright © 2017 AAGL. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive hysterectomy; Racial disparities; Universal insurance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28351763     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.03.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  4 in total

1.  Racial/Ethnic Disparities/Differences in Hysterectomy Route in Women Likely Eligible for Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Lisa M Pollack; Margaret A Olsen; Sarah J Gehlert; Su-Hsin Chang; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 4.137

2.  Racial and ethnic differences in the adoption of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States.

Authors:  Pritesh S Karia; Yongmei Huang; Parisa Tehranifar; Kala Visvanathan; Jason D Wright; Jeanine M Genkinger
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 10.693

3.  Racial Disparities in Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications Within an Integrated Health Care System.

Authors:  Eve Zaritsky; Anthonia Ojo; Lue-Yen Tucker; Tina R Raine-Bennett
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-12-02

4.  Predicting major complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Krupa Madhvani; Silvia Fernandez Garcia; Borja M Fernandez-Felix; Javier Zamora; Tyrone Carpenter; Khalid S Khan
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 16.859

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.