OBJECTIVE: This study examined racial/ethnic disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility rates using 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and the revised 2021 guidelines.
METHODS: The study utilized a retrospective and cross-sectional research design by analyzing data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). N = 2,823 respondents aged 50-80 who self-reported current smoking were included in the analyses. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the changed status of LDCT screening eligibility based on the revised 2021 guidelines by race/ethnicity after adjusting for respondent demographics.
RESULTS: Our study found substantial increases in screening eligibility rates across racial and ethnic groups when comparing the original and revised guidelines. The largest increase was observed among Black people (174%), Hispanics (152%), those in the other category (118%), and Whites who smoke (80.8%). When comparing original screening guidelines to revised guidelines, Whites who smoke had the highest percentage of changes from \"not eligible\" to \"eligible\" (28.3%), followed by individuals in the \"other\" category (28.1%), Black people (23.2%) and Hispanics who smoke (18.3%) (p < 0.001). Binary logistic regression results further showed that Black people who smoke (OR = 0.71, p = 0.001), as well as Hispanics who smoke (OR=0.54, p < 0.001), were less likely to change from not eligible to eligible for screening compared to Whites who smoke after adopting the revised screening guidelines. Based on the absolute differences in screening eligibility rates between Whites and other racial/ethnic groups, the disparities may have widened under the new guidelines, particularly with larger absolute differences observed between Whites, Black people, and Hispanics.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights racial/ethnic disparities in LDCT screening eligibility among people who currently smoke. While the revised USPSTF guidelines increased screening eligibility for racial and ethnic minorities, they did not eliminate these disparities and may have widened under the new guidelines. Targeted interventions and policies are necessary to address barriers faced by underrepresented populations and promote equitable access to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. As the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise, the burden of disease is divided unevenly among different populations. Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes care are pervasive, including the provision of care for prevention of complications. Prevention efforts should be focused on the time that immediately follows a diagnosis of diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess racial/ethnic differences in the receipt of guideline-directed diabetes care for complication prevention by individuals recently diagnosed with diabetes.
METHODS: We used repeated cross-sections of individuals recently diagnosed with diabetes (within the past 5 years) from the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. Multivariate regression was used to estimate the associations between race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic) and guideline-directed process measures for prevention of diabetes complications (visits to an eye and foot specialist, and blood pressure and cholesterol checks by a health professional - each in the prior year). We assessed effect modification of these associations by socioeconomic status (SES).
RESULTS: In a sample of 7,341 participants, Hispanics had lower rates of having any insurance coverage (75.9 %) than Non-Hispanic Whites (93.2 %) and Blacks (88.1 %; p<0.001). After adjustment for demographics, total comorbidities, SES, and health insurance status, Hispanics were less likely to have an eye exam in the prior year (OR 0.80; (95 % CI 0.65-0.99); p=0.04) and a blood pressure check (OR 0.42; (95 % CI 0.28-0.65); p<0.001) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites. There was no significant effect modification of race/ethnicity by SES.
CONCLUSIONS: Hispanics recently diagnosed with diabetes were less likely to receive some indicators of guideline-directed care for the prevention of complications. Lack of insurance and SES may partially explain those differences. Future work should consider policy change and providers\' behaviors linked to racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes care.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities in statin prescribing and utilization have been constantly documented.
To examine whether racial/ethnic disparities in statin treatment have decreased among the diabetic population after the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines.
This retrospective study analyzed patients with diabetes aged 40-75 years old in the Medicare Expenditure Panel Survey (2011-2012 and 2014-2015). Racial and ethnic disparities in the likelihood of statin use and number of statin prescriptions were compared before and after the guideline release. Logistic and negative binomial regressions were used to adjust for patient characteristics. A difference-in-difference model (DID) was used to examine disparity changes.
This study included 2584 patients from 2011 to 2012 and 2610 from 2014 to 2015. During 2011-2012, racial/ethnic disparities were significant for the likelihood of statin use. For the number of statin prescriptions, racial disparity was significant, but not for the ethnic disparity. During 2014-2015, racial/ethnic disparities were significant for the likelihood of statin use but were not significant for the number of statin prescriptions. The DID model found that the 2013 guidelines were not associated with a reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in statin treatment.
This study found persistent disparities in the likelihood of statin use. The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines were not associated with a reduction in racial and ethnic disparities in statin treatment.

BACKGROUND: Differences in activation of emergency medical services (EMS) may contribute to racial/ethnic and sex disparities in stroke outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether EMS use varied by race/ethnicity and sex among a current, diverse national sample of hospitalized acute stroke patients.
RESULTS: We analyzed data from 398,798 stroke patients admitted to 1613 Get With The Guidelines-Stroke participating hospitals between October 2011 and March 2014. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between combinations of racial/ethnic and sex groups with EMS use, adjusting for potential confounders including demographics, medical history, and stroke symptoms. Patients were 50% female, 69% white, 19% black, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 1% other, and 86% had ischemic stroke. Overall, 59% of stroke patients were transported to the hospital by EMS. White women were most likely to use EMS (62%); Hispanic men were least likely to use EMS (52%). After adjustment for patient characteristics, Hispanic and Asian men and women had 20% to 29% lower adjusted odds of using EMS versus their white counterparts; black women were less likely than white women to use EMS (odds ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.77). Patients with weakness or paresis, altered level of consciousness, and/or aphasia were significantly more likely to use EMS than patients without each symptom; the observed racial/ethnic and sex differences in EMS use remained significant after adjustment for stroke symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: EMS use differed by race/ethnicity and sex. These contemporary data document suboptimal use of EMS transport among US stroke patients, especially by racial/ethnic minorities and those with less recognized stroke symptoms.