Cited by 92Glaucoma and retinal disordersOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesOphthalmology and Visual Health Research

Racial and Socioeconomic Differences in Eye Care Utilization among Medicare Beneficiaries with Glaucoma

Open access
Halawa, Omar A., Kolli, Ajay, Oh, Gahee, Mitchell, William G., Glynn, Robert J., Kim, Dae Hyun, Friedman, David S., Zebardast, Nazlee·2022·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose Evaluate differences in eye care utilization among patients with glaucoma by race and socioeconomic status (SES).Design Retrospective cohort study.Participants Representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years with continuous part A/B enrollment between January 1, 2014, and July 1, 2014, at least 1 diagnosis code for glaucoma within that period, and a glaucoma diagnosis in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse before January 1, 2014.Methods The following race/ethnicity categories were defined in our cohort: non-Hispanic White, Black/African American, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander. Low SES was defined as having 2 or more enrollment-based low-income indicators (dual eligibility for Medicare/Medicaid, Part D limited income subsidies, and eligibility for Part A and B State buy-in). Negative binomial regression analyses were carried out to compare relative rate ratios (RRs) of eye care utilization among racial groups stratified by low and non-low SES.Main outcome measures Measured from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016: eye examinations and eye care-related office visits; eye care-related inpatient and emergency department (ED) encounters; eye care-related nursing home and home-visit encounters; visual field and retinal nerve fiber OCT tests; glaucoma lasers and surgeries.Results Among 78 526 participants with glaucoma, mean age was 79.1 years (standard deviation, 7.9 years), 60.9% were female, 78.4% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.8% met enrollment-based criteria for low-SES. Compared with White beneficiaries, Blacks had lower counts of outpatient visits (RR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.93), visual field (VF) tests (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.94), but more inpatient/ED encounters (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.55-3.78) and surgeries (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27). Hispanics had fewer outpatient visits (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98) and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) OCT tests (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93), but more inpatient/ED encounters (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.57) and selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42) versus non-Hispanic Whites. In the non-low SES group, Black versus White disparities persisted in outpatient visits (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.95), VF (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98), RNFL OCT (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78-0.83), and inpatient/ED encounters (RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.55-4.26).Conclusions Disparities were found in eye care utilization among Black and Hispanic patients with glaucoma. These differences persisted among Blacks after stratification by SES, suggesting that systemic racism may be an independent driver in this population.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.09.022

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Bramley TPP, Walt J, Juhasz M, Hansen JE.. Self-reported Function, Health Resource Use, and Total Health Care Costs Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016; 134(4): 357– 365. 26747060
  2. [18]Health Care. In: Bulatao RAAN, ed. Understanding Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004. 20669466
  3. [19]Wang FJJ, Tielsch JM. Racial variations in treatment for glaucoma and cataract among Medicare recipients. Ophthalmic Epidemiology. 1997; 4(2): 89– 100. 9243653

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Halawa, O. A., Kolli, A., Oh, G., Mitchell, W. G., Glynn, R. J., Kim, D. H., Friedman, D. S., & Zebardast, N.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Hebrew SeniorLife (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Zebardast, Nazlee
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
129
Issue
4
Pages
397-405
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3203726949
Cited by
92
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 12
FWCI
13.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
Keywords
glaucoma, eye care utilization, racial disparities, socioeconomic status, Medicare beneficiaries, older adults, Black patients, Hispanic patients, visual field testing, glaucoma surgery, emergency department visits, nursing home visits, home visits, health care access, quality of care
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Glaucoma, Medicare, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Social Class, United States, Healthcare Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review