Strategic hospital partnerships: improved access to care and increased epilepsy surgical volume

Effect of Race and Insurance Type on Access to, and Outcomes of, Epilepsy Surgery: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Despite higher rates of seizure freedom, a large proportion of patients with medically refractory seizures who could benefit from epilepsy surgery do not receive surgical treatment. This literature review describes the association of race and insurance status with epilepsy surgery access and outcomes.

METHODS

Searches in Scopus and PubMed databases related to disparities in epilepsy surgery were conducted. The inclusion criteria consisted of data that could be used to compare epilepsy surgery patient access and outcomes by insurance or race in the United States. Two independent reviewers determined article eligibility.

RESULTS

Of the 289 studies reviewed, 26 were included. Most of the studies were retrospective cohort studies (23 of 26) and national admissions database studies (13 of 26). Of the 17 studies that evaluated epilepsy surgery patient demographics, 11 showed that Black patients were less likely to receive surgery than were White patients or had an increased time to surgery from seizure onset. Nine studies showed that patients with private insurance were more likely to undergo epilepsy surgery and have shorter time to surgery compared with patients with public insurance. No significant association was found between the seizure recurrence rate after surgery with insurance or race.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients and patients with public insurance are receiving epilepsy surgery at lower rates after a prolonged waiting period compared with other patients with medically refractory epilepsy. These results are consistent across the current reported literature. Future efforts should focus on additional characterization and potential causes of these disparities to develop successful interventions.

Surgeon-Led Initiatives to Increase Access to Surgical Treatment of Epilepsy at an Academic Level 4 Epilepsy Center: An Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Underutilization of surgical treatment for epilepsy is multifactorial, and the multidisciplinary nature of caring for these patients represents a significant hurdle in expanding surgical treatment of epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE

To develop internal and external surgical referral relationships for patients with medically refractory epilepsy with the goal of improving access to care.

METHODS

To expand access to surgical epilepsy treatment at University of California (UC)-Irvine, 4 broad approaches focused on developing referral relationships and process improvement of surgical evaluation were undertaken in 2015 and 2016. The authors performed a retrospective review of all surgical epilepsy case referrals of the senior author from 2014 through 2020.

RESULTS

Epilepsy surgical volume at UC-Irvine increased from an average of 5.2 cases annually to 32 cases in the first year (2015) of implementation. There was continued case volume growth from 2015 through 2020 to 52 procedures in the most recent year (P = .03). Hospital payments for epilepsy procedures increased from $1.09M in 2015 to $2.02M and $1.8M in 2019 and 2020 (P < .01), respectively, while maintaining a diverse payer mix. 79.4% of these patients did not have a previously established option for surgical epilepsy care.

CONCLUSION

We outline strategies that level 4 epilepsy centers may use to strengthen collaborations and improve patient access for surgical epilepsy treatment. Increased collaboration can both improve the number of patients with epilepsy with access to specialized surgical care and produce reimbursement benefits for the centers caring for these patients, regardless of insurance source.

Ethical considerations in the surgical and neuromodulatory treatment of epilepsy

Surgical resection and neuromodulation are well-established treatments for those with medically refractory epilepsy. These treatments entail important ethical considerations beyond those which extend to the treatment of epilepsy generally. In this paper, the authors explore these unique considerations through a framework that relates foundational principles of bioethics to features of resective epilepsy surgery and neuromodulation. The authors conducted a literature review to identify ethical considerations for a variety of epilepsy surgery procedures and to examine how foundational principles in bioethics may inform treatment decisions. Healthcare providers should be cognizant of how an increased prevalence of somatic and psychiatric comorbidities, the dynamic nature of symptom burden over time, the individual and systemic barriers to treatment, and variable sociocultural contexts constitute important ethical considerations regarding the use of surgery or neuromodulation for the treatment of epilepsy. Moreover, careful attention should be paid to how resective epilepsy surgery and neuromodulation relate to notions of patient autonomy, safety and privacy, and the shared responsibility for device management and maintenance. A three-tiered approach-(1) gathering information and assessing the risks and benefits of different treatment options, (2) clear communication with patient or proxy with awareness of patient values and barriers to treatment, and (3) long-term decision maintenance through continued identification of gaps in understanding and provision of information-allows for optimal treatment of the individual person with epilepsy while minimizing disparities in epilepsy care.

Underutilization of epilepsy surgery: Part I: A scoping review of barriers

One-third of persons with epilepsy have seizures despite appropriate medical therapy. Drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) is associated with neurocognitive and psychological decline, poor quality of life, increased risk of premature death, and greater economic burden. Epilepsy surgery is an effective and safe treatment for a subset of people with DRE but remains one of the most underutilized evidence-based treatments in modern medicine. The reasons for this quality gap are insufficiently understood. In this comprehensive review, we compile known significant barriers to epilepsy surgery, originating from both patient/family-related factors and physician/health system components. Important patient-related factors include individual and epilepsy characteristics which bias towards continued preferential use of poorly effective medications, as well as patient perspectives and misconceptions of surgical risks and benefits. Health system and physician-related barriers include demonstrable knowledge gaps among physicians, inadequate access to comprehensive epilepsy centers, complex presurgical evaluations, insufficient research, and socioeconomic bias when choosing appropriate surgical candidates.

Underutilization of epilepsy surgery: Part II: Strategies to overcome barriers

Interventions focused on utilization of epilepsy surgery can be divided into groups: those that improve patients' access to surgical evaluation and those that facilitate completion of the surgical evaluation and treatment. Educational intervention, technological innovation, and effective coordination and communication can significantly improve patients' access to surgery. Patient and public facing, individualized (analog and/or digital) communication can raise awareness and acceptance of epilepsy surgery. Educational interventions aimed at providers may mitigate knowledge gaps using practical and concise consensus statements and guidelines, while specific training can improve awareness around implicit bias. Innovative technology, such as clinical decision-making toolkits within the electronic medical record (EMR), machine learning techniques, online decision-support tools, nomograms, and scoring algorithms can facilitate timely identification of appropriate candidates for epilepsy surgery with individualized guidance regarding referral appropriateness, postoperative seizure freedom rate, and risks of complication after surgery. There are specific strategies applicable for epilepsy centers' success: building a multidisciplinary setup, maintaining/tracking volume and complexity of cases, collaborating with other centers, improving surgical outcome with reduced complications, utilizing advanced diagnostics tools, and considering minimally invasive surgical techniques. Established centers may use other strategies, such as multi-stage procedures for multifocal epilepsy, advanced functional mapping with tailored surgery for epilepsy involving the eloquent cortex, and generation of fresh hypotheses in cases of surgical failure. Finally, improved access to epilepsy surgery can be accomplished with policy changes (e.g., anti-discrimination policy, exemption in transportation cost, telehealth reimbursement policy, patient-centered epilepsy care models, pay-per-performance models, affordability and access to insurance, and increased funding for research). Every intervention should receive regular evaluation and feedback-driven modification to ensure appropriate utilization of epilepsy surgery.

Deciphering the surgical treatment gap for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE): A literature review

Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) rarely achieve seizure freedom with medical therapy alone. Despite being safe and effective for select patients with DRE, epilepsy surgery remains heavily underutilized. Multiple studies have indicated that the overall rates of surgery in patients with DRE have stagnated in recent years and may be decreasing, even when hospitalizations for epilepsy-related problems are on the rise. Ultimately, many patients with DRE who might otherwise benefit from surgery continue to have intractable seizures, lacking access to the full spectrum of available treatment options. In this article, we review the various factors accounting for the persistent underutilization of epilepsy surgery and uncover several key themes, including the persistent knowledge gap among physicians in identifying potential surgical candidates, lack of coordinated patient care, patient misconceptions of surgery, and socioeconomic disparities impeding access to care. Moreover, factors such as the cost and complexity of the preoperative evaluation, a lack of federal resource allocation for the research of surgical therapies for epilepsy, and difficulties recruiting patients to clinical trials all contribute to this multifaceted dilemma.

Referral trends for temporal lobe epilepsy surgery between 2000 and 2014 in India

BACKGROUND

We conducted a retrospective study examining the trends in referral to a tertiary epilepsy surgery center in India over 2 decades.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent long-term video electro encephalography monitoring for presurgical evaluation were retrospectively analyzed. Patients aged >16 years and diagnosed to have drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) were included. They were divided into 3 groups comprising 5-year periods each during which they underwent presurgical evaluation, group 1: year 2000-2004; group 2: year 2005-2009; and group 3: year 2010-2014. Referral data with particular reference to duration of epilepsy before referral, age at onset of seizures, and number of antiepileptic drugs tried before referral were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 385 referrals in group 1, 488 in group 2, and 489 in group 3. The mean duration of epilepsy before referral was 18.10 ± 9.44 years; there was no change in the duration of epilepsy before referral (p = 0.638). A significant increase in the age at onset of seizures and age at presurgical evaluation was noted over time.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence for delayed referral of patients with refractory TLE to a surgical epilepsy center in this study. Renewed efforts to confront challenges beholding epilepsy surgery and steps to ensure timely referral are desirable.