OBJECTIVES: This study examined the association between insurance status and physicians' adherence with providing evidence-based treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Within the PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) registry of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry), the authors identified 60,814 outpatients with CAD from 30 U.S. practices. Hierarchical modified Poisson regression models with practice site as a random effect were used to study the association between health insurance (no insurance, public, or private health insurance) and 5 CAD quality measures. RESULTS: Of 60,814 patients, 5716 patients (9.4%) were uninsured and 11,962 patients (19.7%) had public insurance, whereas 43,136 (70.9%) were privately insured. After accounting for exclusions, uninsured patients with CAD were 9%, 12%, and 6% less likely to receive treatment with a beta-blocker, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB), and lipid-lowering therapy, respectively, than privately insured patients, and patients with public insurance were 9% less likely to be prescribed ACE-I/ARB therapy. Most differences by insurance status were attenuated after adjusting for the site providing care. For example, whereas uninsured patients with left ventricular dysfunction and CAD were less likely to receive ACE-I/ARB therapy (unadjusted RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.93), this difference was eliminated after adjustment for site (adjusted RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.03; p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Within this national outpatient cardiac registry, uninsured patients were less likely to receive evidence-based medications for CAD. These disparities were explained by the site providing care. Efforts to reduce treatment differences by insurance status among cardiac outpatients may additionally need to focus on improving the rates of evidence-based treatment at sites with high proportions of uninsured patients.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the association between insurance status and physicians' adherence with providing evidence-based treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Within the PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) registry of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry), the authors identified 60,814 outpatients with CAD from 30 U.S. practices. Hierarchical modified Poisson regression models with practice site as a random effect were used to study the association between health insurance (no insurance, public, or private health insurance) and 5 CAD quality measures. RESULTS: Of 60,814 patients, 5716 patients (9.4%) were uninsured and 11,962 patients (19.7%) had public insurance, whereas 43,136 (70.9%) were privately insured. After accounting for exclusions, uninsured patients with CAD were 9%, 12%, and 6% less likely to receive treatment with a beta-blocker, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB), and lipid-lowering therapy, respectively, than privately insured patients, and patients with public insurance were 9% less likely to be prescribed ACE-I/ARB therapy. Most differences by insurance status were attenuated after adjusting for the site providing care. For example, whereas uninsured patients with left ventricular dysfunction and CAD were less likely to receive ACE-I/ARB therapy (unadjusted RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.93), this difference was eliminated after adjustment for site (adjusted RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.03; p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Within this national outpatient cardiac registry, uninsured patients were less likely to receive evidence-based medications for CAD. These disparities were explained by the site providing care. Efforts to reduce treatment differences by insurance status among cardiac outpatients may additionally need to focus on improving the rates of evidence-based treatment at sites with high proportions of uninsured patients.
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Joel S Weissman; Eric C Schneider; Jack A Ginsburg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Dara H Sorkin; John Billimek; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: S R Mehta; S Yusuf; R J Peters; M E Bertrand; B S Lewis; M K Natarajan; K Malmberg; H Rupprecht; F Zhao; S Chrolavicius; I Copland; K A Fox Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Javed Butler; Patrick G Arbogast; Rhonda BeLue; James Daugherty; Manoj K Jain; Wayne A Ray; Marie R Griffin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-11-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ashley N Kyalwazi; Eméfah C Loccoh; LaPrincess C Brewer; Elizabeth O Ofili; Jiaman Xu; Yang Song; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Robert W Yeh; Rishi K Wadhera Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Timothy M Connolly; Robert S White; Dahniel L Sastow; Licia K Gaber-Baylis; Zachary A Turnbull; Lisa Q Rong Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.352