Foss, Randy M

ABSTRACT Importance Rural-urban disparities in chronic disease prevalence are well established; however, the extent to which individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to these disparities remains unclear. Objective To examine the associations of rurality and SES with the prevalence of five most burdensome chronic diseases among adults. Design We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults across 27 Upper Midwest counties using the Expanded Rochester Epidemiology Project (E-REP) medical record data linkage system to evaluate associations between rurality, SES and chronic disease prevalence. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed asthma, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and mood disorders was identified from International Classification of Diseases ICD9/10 codes over a five-year period (2014-2019). Setting Population based Participants Adults over 18 years residing in the 27 E-REP counties, excluding those missing rural-urban residence status. Exposure HOUSES index, an individual-level measure of SES, served as the primary measure, while rurality based on Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes 4-10 was the secondary measure. Main Outcome Prevalence of the five clinically diagnosed chronic diseases was identified using ICD9/10 codes from 2014–2019. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used and adjusted for demographics and general medical examination receipt, to assess rural-urban and SES differences for prevalence of each chronic disease. Results Among 455,802 adults with available HOUSES index, 42.8% lived in rural areas, 53.8% were female and 87.4% were non-Hispanic White. In the unadjusted analysis, rural and urban populations showed comparable asthma and CHD prevalence, while mood disorders, hypertension, and diabetes were more common in urban areas. After adjusting for demographic factors and healthcare utilization, rural-urban differences were no longer statistically significant, whereas SES remained strongly associated with all diseases in a dose response manner (e.g., adjusted Odds Ratio for hypertension (ref: HOUSES index Q4): 1.14, 1.27, and 1.42 for HOUSES index Q3, Q2, and Q1, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Individual-level SES measured by the HOUSES index, was more strongly associated with chronic disease prevalence than rurality, supporting its integration into population health assessment and risk stratification.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels ( P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team ( P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007–1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.