BACKGROUND: Private insurance status may favorably affect various health outcomes including those associated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We explored the effect of insurance status on 5 short-term RP outcomes. METHODS: Within the Health Care Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) we focused on RPs performed within the 5 most contemporary years (2003-2007). We tested the rates of blood transfusions, extended length of stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications, as well as in-hospital mortality, stratified according to insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression analyses, fitted with general estimation equations for clustering among hospitals, adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 61,167 RPs were identified. Of those, private insurance accounted for the majority of cases (n = 41,312, 67.5%), followed by Medicare (n = 18,759, 30.7%) and Medicaid (n = 1096, 1.8%). Insurance status other than private was associated with higher rates of blood transfusions (P < .001), higher overall postoperative complication rates (P < .001), higher rates of hospital stay above the median (P < .001), as well as higher in-hospital mortality (P = .01). In multivariable analyses, compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid patients had higher rates of blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, P < .001), length of stay beyond the median (OR = 1.61, P < .001) postoperative complications (OR= 1.24, P = .02), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 4.91, = .01). Similarly, Medicare patients had higher rates of blood transfusions (OR = 1.21, P < .001), overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.17, P×< .001) and length of stay beyond the median (OR = 1.25, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for confounding factors, patients with private insurance have better outcomes than their counterparts with nonprivate insurance.
BACKGROUND: Private insurance status may favorably affect various health outcomes including those associated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We explored the effect of insurance status on 5 short-term RP outcomes. METHODS: Within the Health Care Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) we focused on RPs performed within the 5 most contemporary years (2003-2007). We tested the rates of blood transfusions, extended length of stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications, as well as in-hospital mortality, stratified according to insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression analyses, fitted with general estimation equations for clustering among hospitals, adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 61,167 RPs were identified. Of those, private insurance accounted for the majority of cases (n = 41,312, 67.5%), followed by Medicare (n = 18,759, 30.7%) and Medicaid (n = 1096, 1.8%). Insurance status other than private was associated with higher rates of blood transfusions (P < .001), higher overall postoperative complication rates (P < .001), higher rates of hospital stay above the median (P < .001), as well as higher in-hospital mortality (P = .01). In multivariable analyses, compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid patients had higher rates of blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, P < .001), length of stay beyond the median (OR = 1.61, P < .001) postoperative complications (OR= 1.24, P = .02), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 4.91, = .01). Similarly, Medicare patients had higher rates of blood transfusions (OR = 1.21, P < .001), overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.17, P×< .001) and length of stay beyond the median (OR = 1.25, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for confounding factors, patients with private insurance have better outcomes than their counterparts with nonprivate insurance.
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Jay Jhaveri; Maxine Sun; Khurshid R Ghani; Jan Schmitges; Wooju Jeong; James O Peabody; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Mani Menon Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2012-04
Authors: James G Krings; Dorina Kallogjeri; Andre Wineland; Kenneth G Nepple; Jay F Piccirillo; Anne E Getz Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Blase N Polite; Jennifer J Griggs; Beverly Moy; Christopher Lathan; Nefertiti C duPont; Gina Villani; Sandra L Wong; Michael T Halpern Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Akshay Sood; Firas Abdollah; Jesse D Sammon; Kaustav Majumder; Marianne Schmid; James O Peabody; Mark A Preston; Adam S Kibel; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Che-Kai Tsao; Alexander C Small; Erin L Moshier; Benjamin A Gartrell; Juan P Wisnivesky; Guru Sonpavde; James H Godbold; Michael A Palese; Simon J Hall; William K Oh; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: C B Anderson; E B Elkin; C L Atoria; J A Eastham; P T Scardino; K Touijer Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Lisa Eisler; Stanford Chihuri; Lawrence G Lenke; Lena S Sun; David Faraoni; Guohua Li Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Akshay Sood; Firas Abdollah; Jesse D Sammon; Victor Kapoor; Craig G Rogers; Wooju Jeong; Dane E Klett; Julian Hanske; Christian P Meyer; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jacques Hacquebord; Amy M Cizik; Sree Harsha Malempati; Mark A Konodi; Richard J Bransford; Carlo Bellabarba; Jens Chapman; Michael J Lee Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James G Krings; Dorina Kallogjeri; Andre Wineland; Kenneth G Nepple; Jay F Piccirillo; Anne E Getz Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 3.325