Jay G Berry1, Denise M Goodman2, Ryan J Coller3, Rishi Agrawal4, Dennis Z Kuo5, Eyal Cohen6, Joanna Thomson7, Danielle DeCourcey8, Neal DeJong9, Anna Agan10, Dipika Gaur11, Madeline Coquillette10, Charis Crofton10, Amy Houtrow12, Matt Hall13. 1. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jay.berry@childrens.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Division of Hospital-Based Medicine, La Rabida Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL. 5. Department of Pediatrics, John R. Oishei Children's Hospital, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 8. Division of Medicine Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 9. Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC. 10. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 11. Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, IL. 12. Division of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburg, PA. 13. Children's Hospital Association, Lenexa, KS.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health care use and spending in children using vs not using respiratory medical equipment and supplies (RMES). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study of 20 352 children age 1-18 years continuously enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 from 12 states in the Truven Medicaid MarketScan Database; 7060 children using RMES were propensity score matched with 13 292 without RMES. Home RMES use was identified with Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and International Classification of Diseases codes. RMES use was regressed on annual per-member-per-year Medicaid payments, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, including underlying respiratory and other complex chronic conditions. RESULTS: Of children requiring RMES, 47% used oxygen, 28% suction, 22% noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, 17% tracheostomy, 8% ventilator, 5% mechanical in-exsufflator, and 4% high-frequency chest wall oscillator. Most children (93%) using RMES had a chronic condition; 26% had ≥6. The median per-member-per-year payments in matched children with vs without RMES were $24 359 vs $13 949 (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, payment increased significantly (P < .001 for all) with mechanical in-exsufflator (+$2657), tracheostomy (+$6447), suction (+$7341), chest wall oscillator (+$8925), and ventilator (+$20 530). Those increased payments were greater than the increase associated with a coded respiratory chronic condition (+$2709). Hospital and home health care were responsible for the greatest differences in payment (+$3799 and +$3320, respectively) between children with and without RMES. CONCLUSION: The use of RMES is associated with high health care spending, especially with hospital and home health care. Population health initiatives in children may benefit from consideration of RMES in comprehensive risk assessment for health care spending.
OBJECTIVE: To compare health care use and spending in children using vs not using respiratory medical equipment and supplies (RMES). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study of 20 352 children age 1-18 years continuously enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 from 12 states in the Truven Medicaid MarketScan Database; 7060 children using RMES were propensity score matched with 13 292 without RMES. Home RMES use was identified with Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and International Classification of Diseases codes. RMES use was regressed on annual per-member-per-year Medicaid payments, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, including underlying respiratory and other complex chronic conditions. RESULTS: Of children requiring RMES, 47% used oxygen, 28% suction, 22% noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, 17% tracheostomy, 8% ventilator, 5% mechanical in-exsufflator, and 4% high-frequency chest wall oscillator. Most children (93%) using RMES had a chronic condition; 26% had ≥6. The median per-member-per-year payments in matched children with vs without RMES were $24 359 vs $13 949 (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, payment increased significantly (P < .001 for all) with mechanical in-exsufflator (+$2657), tracheostomy (+$6447), suction (+$7341), chest wall oscillator (+$8925), and ventilator (+$20 530). Those increased payments were greater than the increase associated with a coded respiratory chronic condition (+$2709). Hospital and home health care were responsible for the greatest differences in payment (+$3799 and +$3320, respectively) between children with and without RMES. CONCLUSION: The use of RMES is associated with high health care spending, especially with hospital and home health care. Population health initiatives in children may benefit from consideration of RMES in comprehensive risk assessment for health care spending.
Authors: Jerry Suls; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jay Berry; Arlene S Bierman; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Tilda Farhat; Martin Fortin; Siran M Koroukian; Ana Quinones; Jeffrey H Silber; Brian W Ward; Melissa Wei; Deborah Young-Hyman; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Sushmita Yallapragada; Rashmin C Savani; Sara Mūnoz-Blanco; Joanne M Lagatta; William E Truog; Nicolas F M Porta; Leif D Nelin; Huayan Zhang; Shilpa Vyas-Read; Robert DiGeronimo; Girija Natarajan; Erica Wymore; Beth Haberman; Joana Machry; Karin Potoka; Karna Murthy Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 2.521