BACKGROUND: The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on breast reconstruction modalities when access to care is controlled is unknown. METHODS: Records for patients who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic medical center between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred eighty-three breast reconstructions were analyzed. The commercially insured were more likely to undergo microvascular autologous breast reconstruction (44.4 percent versus 31.3 percent; p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 2.22, whereas patients with Medicare and Medicaid were significantly more likely to receive tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, with an odds ratio of 1.42 (41.7 percent versus 47.7 percent; p = 0.013). Comparing all patients with microvascular reconstruction, the commercially insured were more likely to receive a perforator flap (79.7 percent versus 55.3 percent versus 43.9 percent), with an odds ratio of 4.23 (p < 0.001). When stratifying patients by median household income, those in the highest income quartile were most likely to receive a perforator flap (82.1 percent) (p < 0.001), whereas those in the lowest income quartile were most likely to receive a muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (36.4 percent) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at the same academic medical center had significantly different breast reconstruction modalities when stratified by insurance and household income. Despite similar access to care, differences in insurance types may favor higher rates of perforator flap breast reconstruction among the commercially insured. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
BACKGROUND: The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on breast reconstruction modalities when access to care is controlled is unknown. METHODS: Records for patients who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic medical center between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred eighty-three breast reconstructions were analyzed. The commercially insured were more likely to undergo microvascular autologous breast reconstruction (44.4 percent versus 31.3 percent; p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 2.22, whereas patients with Medicare and Medicaid were significantly more likely to receive tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, with an odds ratio of 1.42 (41.7 percent versus 47.7 percent; p = 0.013). Comparing all patients with microvascular reconstruction, the commercially insured were more likely to receive a perforator flap (79.7 percent versus 55.3 percent versus 43.9 percent), with an odds ratio of 4.23 (p < 0.001). When stratifying patients by median household income, those in the highest income quartile were most likely to receive a perforator flap (82.1 percent) (p < 0.001), whereas those in the lowest income quartile were most likely to receive a muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (36.4 percent) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients at the same academic medical center had significantly different breast reconstruction modalities when stratified by insurance and household income. Despite similar access to care, differences in insurance types may favor higher rates of perforator flap breast reconstruction among the commercially insured. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
Authors: Anna E Meade; Samantha M Cummins; Jordyn T Farewell; Sofia Duque; Sydney K Mulqueen; Ashleigh Chuah; Andrew Y Zhang Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-07-05