Is Insurance Status Associated with the Likelihood of Operative Treatment of Clavicle Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Most closed clavicle fractures are treated nonoperatively. Research during the past decade has reported differences in the treatment of clavicle fractures based on insurance status in the US and may highlight unmet needs in a vulnerable population, particularly because new data show that surgery may lead to improved outcomes in select populations. Large-scale, national data are needed to better inform this debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the likelihood of operative fixation of closed clavicle fractures vary among patients with different types of insurance? (2) What demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with the likelihood of clavicle fracture surgery? (3) Has the proportion of operative fixation of clavicle fractures changed over time?
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2001-2013 database was performed. This database is the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the US that provides pertinent socioeconomic data on a nationwide scale. Data were queried for patients with closed clavicle fractures using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnostic codes, and surgery was determined using ICD-9 procedural codes. A total of 252,109 patients were included in the final analysis after 158,619 patients were excluded because of missing demographic or insurance data, ambiguous fracture location, or age younger than 19 years. Of the 252,109 included patients, 21,638 (9%) underwent surgical fixation of clavicle fractures. A chi-square analysis was performed to determine variables to be included in a multivariable analysis. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine demographic and other important variables, with a significance level of p < 0.01. Poisson's regression and a t-test were used to analyze trends over time. Results were recorded as odds ratios (OR) and incidence rate ratios.
RESULTS: After controlling for demographic and potentially relevant variables, such as the median income and fracture location, we found that patients with Medicare, Medicaid, and no insurance had a lower likelihood of undergoing operative fixation of clavicle fractures than did those with private insurance. Patients without insurance were the least likely to undergo surgery (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60-0.66; p < 0.001), followed by those with Medicare (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.78; p < 0.001) and those with Medicaid (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; p < 0.001). Women, black, and Hispanic patients were also less likely to undergo surgery than men and white patients (OR, 0.95; p = 0.003; OR = 0.67; p < 0.001; and OR = 0.82; p < 0.001, respectively) There was an increase in the overall proportion of patients undergoing surgery, from 5% in 2001 to 11% in 2013 (incidence rate ratio, 2.99; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the greater use of surgery among adult patients with clavicle fractures who have private insurance than among those with nonprivate or no insurance-as well as among men and white patients compared with women and patients of color-may be a manifestation of important health care disparities in the inpatient population. This may be owing to variable access to care or a difference in the likelihood that a surgeon will offer surgery based on a patient's insurance status. Because operative fixation of closed clavicle fractures increases in the adult population, future research should elucidate conscious and subconscious motivations of patients and surgeons to better inform the discussion of health care disparities in orthopaedics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.