Medicaid plays a critical role during the perinatal period, but pregnancy-related Medicaid eligibility only extends for 60 days post partum. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) Medicaid expansions increased adult Medicaid eligibility to 138% of the federal poverty level in participating states, allowing eligible new mothers to remain covered after pregnancy-related coverage expires. We investigate the impact of ACA Medicaid expansions on insurance coverage among new mothers living in poverty.METHODS:
We define new mothers living in poverty as women ages 19 to 44 with incomes below the federal poverty level who report giving birth in the past 12 months. We use 2010–2017 American Community Survey data and a difference-in-differences approach using parental Medicaid-eligibility thresholds to estimate the effect of ACA Medicaid expansions on insurance coverage among poor new mothers.RESULTS:
A 100-percentage-point increase in parental Medicaid-eligibility is associated with an 8.8-percentage-point decrease (P < .001) in uninsurance, a 13.2-percentage-point increase (P < .001) in Medicaid coverage, and a 4.4-percentage-point decrease in private or other coverage (P = .001) among poor new mothers. The average increase in Medicaid eligibility is associated with a 28% decrease in uninsurance, a 13% increase in Medicaid coverage, and an 18% decline in private or other insurance among poor new mothers in expansion states. However, in 2017, there were ~142 000 remaining uninsured, poor new mothers.CONCLUSIONS:
ACA Medicaid expansions are associated with increased Medicaid coverage and reduced uninsurance among poor new mothers. Opportunities remain for expansion and nonexpansion states to increase insurance coverage among new mothers living in poverty.
A previous single-county study found that retail stores usually asked young-looking tobacco customers to show proof-of-age identification, but a large proportion of illegal tobacco sales to minors occurred after the customers had shown identification proving they were too young to purchase tobacco. We sought to investigate these findings on a larger scale.METHODS:
We obtained state reports for federal fiscal years 2017 and 2018 from a federal agency that tracks tobacco sales to supervised minors conducting compliance checks in retail stores. We used descriptive and multivariable logistic regression methods to determine (1) how often stores in 17 states requested identifications, (2) what proportion of violations occurred after identification requests, and (3) if violation rates differed when minors were required versus forbidden to carry identification.RESULTS:
Stores asked minors for identification in 79.6% (95% confidence interval: 79.3%–80.8%) of compliance checks (N = 17 276). Violations after identification requests constituted 22.8% (95% confidence interval: 20.0%–25.6%; interstate range, 1.7%–66.2%) of all violations and were nearly 3 times as likely when minors were required to carry identification in compliance checks. Violations were 42% more likely when minors asked for a vaping product versus cigarettes.CONCLUSIONS:
Stores that sell tobacco to underage customers are more likely to be detected and penalized when youth inspectors carry identification during undercover tobacco sales compliance checks. The new age-21 tobacco sales requirement presents an opportunity to require identifications be carried and address other long-standing weaknesses in compliance-check protocols to help combat the current adolescent vaping epidemic.
To test the hypotheses that minority children with long-bone fractures are less likely to (1) receive analgesics, (2) receive opioid analgesics, and (3) achieve pain reduction.METHODS:
We performed a 3-year retrospective cross-sectional study of children <18 years old with long-bone fractures using the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network Registry (7 emergency departments). We performed bivariable and multivariable logistic regression to measure the association between patient race and ethnicity and (1) any analgesic, (2) opioid analgesic, (3) ≥2-point pain score reduction, and (4) optimal pain reduction (ie, to mild or no pain).RESULTS:
In 21 069 visits with moderate-to-severe pain, 86.1% received an analgesic and 45.4% received opioids. Of 8533 patients with reassessment of pain, 89.2% experienced ≥2-point reduction in pain score and 62.2% experienced optimal pain reduction. In multivariable analyses, minority children, compared with non-Hispanic (NH) white children, were more likely to receive any analgesics (NH African American: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.72 [95% confidence interval 1.51–1.95]; Hispanic: 1.32 [1.16–1.51]) and achieve ≥2-point reduction in pain (NH African American: 1.42 [1.14–1.76]; Hispanic: 1.38 [1.04–1.83]) but were less likely to receive opioids (NH African American: aOR 0.86 [0.77–0.95]; Hispanic: aOR 0.86 [0.76–0.96]) or achieve optimal pain reduction (NH African American: aOR 0.78 [0.67–0.90]; Hispanic: aOR 0.80 [0.67–0.95]).CONCLUSIONS:
There are differences in process and outcome measures by race and ethnicity in the emergency department management of pain among children with long-bone fractures. Although minority children are more likely to receive analgesics and achieve ≥2-point reduction in pain, they are less likely to receive opioids and achieve optimal pain reduction.
Electronic cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) is a newly emerging diagnosis in the United States, yet the incidence has surged greatly in the past year. With the trend of using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and vaping rising at an alarming rate among teenagers, many are resorting to friends, illicit drug dealers, and other informal sources to obtain their e-cigarettes, which is greatly contributing to the national outbreak of EVALI. The incidence of adolescents presenting with the constellation of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and constitutional symptoms characteristic of EVALI has been widely reported within the nation. We present one such case of an adolescent boy with a 2-year history of daily vaping who presented with nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and fever but lacked the respiratory symptoms that have been reported in the majority of EVALI cases reported thus far. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed an incidental finding of lung pathology characteristic of EVALI, prompting further workup and diagnosis of EVALI. In this case, it is demonstrated that the presentation of EVALI can be variable and is still poorly defined. The rising morbidity and mortality from EVALI reveal the importance of considering EVALI in all patients with a history of vaping or e-cigarette use, regardless of the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms.
More than 80% of children with cancer become long-term survivors, yet most survivors experience late effects of treatment. Little is known about how parents and physicians consider late-effects risks against a potential survival benefit when making treatment decisions.METHODS:
We used a discrete choice experiment to assess the importance of late effects on treatment decision-making and acceptable trade-offs between late-effects risks and survival benefit. We surveyed 95 parents of children with cancer and 41 physicians at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center to assess preferences for 5 late effects of treatment: neurocognitive impairment, infertility, cardiac toxicity, second malignancies, and impaired growth and development.RESULTS:
Each late effect had a statistically significant association with treatment choice, as did survival benefit (P < .001). Avoidance of severe cognitive impairment was the most important treatment consideration to parents and physicians. Parents also valued cure and decreased risk of second malignancies; physician decision-making was driven by avoidance of second malignancies and infertility. Both parents and physicians accepted a high risk of infertility (parents, a 137% increased risk; physicians, an 80% increased risk) in exchange for a 10% greater chance of cure.CONCLUSIONS:
Avoidance of severe neurocognitive impairment was the predominant driver of parent and physician treatment preferences, even over an increased chance of cure. This highlights the importance of exploring parental late-effects priorities when discussing treatment options.
Pediatric subspecialists routinely provide procedural sedation outside the operating room. No large study has reported trends in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation. Our purpose in this study was to identify significant trends in outpatient procedural sedation using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.METHODS:
Prospectively collected data from 2007 to 2018 were used for trending procedural sedation. Patient characteristics, medications, type of providers, serious adverse events, and interventions were reported. The Cochran–Armitage test for trend was used to explore the association between the year and a given characteristic.RESULTS:
A total of 432 842 sedation encounters were identified and divided into 3 4-year epochs (2007–2011, 2011–2014, and 2014–2018). There was a significant decrease in infants <3 months of age receiving procedural sedation (odds ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–0.98). A large increase was noticed in pediatric hospitalists providing procedural sedation (0.6%–9.5%; P < .001); there was a decreasing trend in sedation by other providers who were not in emergency medicine, critical care, or anesthesiology (13.9%–3.9%; P < .001). There was an increasing trend in the use of dexmedetomidine (6.3%–9.3%; P < .001) and a decreasing trend in the use of chloral hydrate (6.3%–0.01%; P < .001) and pentobarbital (7.3%–0.5%; P < .001). Serious adverse events showed a nonsignificant increase overall (1.35%–1.75%).CONCLUSIONS:
We report an increase in pediatric hospitalists providing sedation and a significant decrease in the use of chloral hydrate and pentobarbital by providers. Further studies are required to see if sedation services decrease costs and optimize resource use.
The demand for transplantable solid organs far exceeds the supply of deceased donor organs. Patient selection criteria are determined by individual transplant programs; given the scarcity of solid organs for transplant, allocation to those most likely to benefit takes into consideration both medical and psychosocial factors. Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities have historically been excluded as potential recipients of organ transplants. When a transplant is likely to provide significant health benefits, denying a transplant to otherwise eligible children with disabilities may constitute illegal and unjustified discrimination. Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities should not be excluded from the potential pool of recipients and should be referred for evaluation as recipients of solid organ transplants.