4.3 Article

Revisiting racial disparities in access to surgical management of drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy post implementation of Affordable Care Act

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 82-89

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.05.001

关键词

Racial disparity; Temporal lobe epilepsy; Intractable; Outcomes; Surgical access; Affordable Care Act 2010; Obamacare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act(ACA), several reports demonstrated remarkable racial disparities in access to surgical care for epileptic patients. Implementation of ACA provided healthcare access to 7-16 million uninsured Americans. The current study investigates racial disparity post ACA era in (1) access to surgical management of drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (DRTLE); (2) short-term outcomes in the surgical cohort. Patient and methods: Adult patients with DRTLE registered in the National Inpatient Sample (2012-2013) were identified. Association of race (African Americans and other minorities with respect to Caucasians) with access to surgical management of TLE, and short-term outcomes. [discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS) and hospital charges] in the surgical cohort were investigated using multivariable regression techniques. Results: Of the 4062 patients with DRTLE, 3.6%(n = 148) underwent lobectomy. Overall, the mean age of the cohort was 42.35 +/- 16.33 years, and 54% were female. Regression models adjusted for patient demographics, clinical and hospital characteristics demonstrated no racial disparities in access to surgical care for DRTLE. Likewise, no racial disparity was noted in outcomes in the surgical cohort. Conclusion: Our study reflects no racial disparity in access to surgical care in patients with DRTLE post 2010 amendment of the ACA. The seismic changes to the US healthcare system may plausibly have accounted for addressing the gap in racial disparity for epilepsy surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据