OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in healthcare delivery by expected health insurance status for hospitalized patients in diagnosis-related group (DRG) 475, respiratory system diagnoses requiring intubation and continuous ventilator support. DESIGN: A survey, derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project interstate database, of the care delivered to 21,149 adult patients in DRG 475 and hospitalized in one of 718 acute-care hospitals in nine states. Multivariate analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and hospital factors. RESULTS: Patients insured by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) had significantly lower rates of inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 0.73-0.96), 14.3 more procedures performed (CI95, 11.5-17.2), 7.0% shorter hospitalizations (CI95, 12.5-1.6), and 5.2% higher charges (CI95, 0.4-10.0) than those with traditional private insurance. In addition, patients insured by Medicaid had 3.5% more procedures performed (CI95, 1.6-5.4), 10.4% longer lengths of hospitalization (CI95, 6.7-14.0), and 13.8% higher charges (CI95, 10.6-17.0) than those with traditional private insurance. Finally, the uninsured had significantly lower rates of inpatient mortality (OR, 0.87; CI95, 0.77-0.99), 8.5% more procedures performed (CI95, 6.0-11.1), 16.5% shorter hospitalizations (CI95, 21.5-11.6), and 13.4% lower charges (CI95, 17.8-9.0) than those with traditional private insurance. CONCLUSION: Variations in healthcare measures by insurance status for this DRG emphasize the importance of more careful analyses of insurance categories as a determinant of healthcare access and outcomes. Expected insurance status was an independent predictor of cost. Private insurance and HMO populations differed significantly in outcome and cannot be considered equivalent.
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in healthcare delivery by expected health insurance status for hospitalized patients in diagnosis-related group (DRG) 475, respiratory system diagnoses requiring intubation and continuous ventilator support. DESIGN: A survey, derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project interstate database, of the care delivered to 21,149 adult patients in DRG 475 and hospitalized in one of 718 acute-care hospitals in nine states. Multivariate analysis was performed, controlling for demographic and hospital factors. RESULTS:Patients insured by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) had significantly lower rates of inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 0.73-0.96), 14.3 more procedures performed (CI95, 11.5-17.2), 7.0% shorter hospitalizations (CI95, 12.5-1.6), and 5.2% higher charges (CI95, 0.4-10.0) than those with traditional private insurance. In addition, patients insured by Medicaid had 3.5% more procedures performed (CI95, 1.6-5.4), 10.4% longer lengths of hospitalization (CI95, 6.7-14.0), and 13.8% higher charges (CI95, 10.6-17.0) than those with traditional private insurance. Finally, the uninsured had significantly lower rates of inpatient mortality (OR, 0.87; CI95, 0.77-0.99), 8.5% more procedures performed (CI95, 6.0-11.1), 16.5% shorter hospitalizations (CI95, 21.5-11.6), and 13.4% lower charges (CI95, 17.8-9.0) than those with traditional private insurance. CONCLUSION: Variations in healthcare measures by insurance status for this DRG emphasize the importance of more careful analyses of insurance categories as a determinant of healthcare access and outcomes. Expected insurance status was an independent predictor of cost. Private insurance and HMO populations differed significantly in outcome and cannot be considered equivalent.
Authors: Robert A Fowler; Lori-Anne Noyahr; J Daryl Thornton; Ruxandra Pinto; Jeremy M Kahn; Neill K J Adhikari; Peter M Dodek; Nadia A Khan; Tom Kalb; Andrea Hill; James M O'Brien; David Evans; J Randall Curtis Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sarah M Lyon; Nicole M Benson; Colin R Cooke; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Gagan Kumar; Amit Taneja; Tilottama Majumdar; Elizabeth R Jacobs; Jeff Whittle; Rahul Nanchal Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: James M O'Brien; Bo Lu; Naeem A Ali; Deborah A Levine; Scott K Aberegg; Stanley Lemeshow Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Anika L Hines; Susan O Raetzman; Marguerite L Barrett; Ernest Moy; Roxanne M Andrews Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 2.655