Disparities in the use of ambulatory surgical centers: a cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) provide outpatient surgical services more efficiently than hospital outpatient departments, benefiting patients through lower co-payments and other expenses. We studied the influence of socioeconomic status and race on use of ASCs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From the 2005 State Ambulatory Surgery Database for Florida, a cohort of discharges for urologic, ophthalmologic, gastrointestinal, and orthopedic procedures was created. Socioeconomic status was established at the zip code level. Logistic regression models were fit to assess associations between socioeconomic status and ASC use.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to the lowest group, patients of higher socioeconomic status were more likely to have procedures performed in ASCs (OR 1.07 CI 1.05, 1.09). Overall, the middle socioeconomic status group was the most likely group to use the ASC (OR 1.23, CI 1.21 to 1.25). For whites and blacks, higher status is associated with increased ASC use, but for Hispanics this relationship was reversed (OR 0.84 CI 0.78, 0.91).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients of lower socioeconomic status treated with outpatient surgery are significantly less likely to have their procedures in ASCs, suggesting that less resourced patients are encountering higher cost burdens for care. Thus, the most economically vulnerable group is unnecessarily subject to higher charges for surgery.</p

Impact of state mandatory insurance coverage on the use of diabetes preventive care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have passed laws and regulations mandating that health insurance plans cover diabetes treatment and preventive care. Previous research on state mandates suggested that these policies had little impact, since many health plans already covered the benefits. Here, we analyze the contents of and model the effect of state mandates. We examined how state mandates impacted the likelihood of using three types of diabetes preventive care: annual eye exams, annual foot exams, and performing daily self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We collected information on diabetes benefits specified in state mandates and time the mandates were enacted. To assess impact, we used data that the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System gathered between 1996 and 2000. 4,797 individuals with self-reported diabetes and covered by private insurance were included; 3,195 of these resided in the 16 states that passed state mandates between 1997 and 1999; 1,602 resided in the 8 states or the District of Columbia without state mandates by 2000. Multivariate logistic regression models (with state fixed effect, controlling for patient demographic characteristics and socio-economic status, state characteristics, and time trend) were used to model the association between passing state mandates and the usage of the forms of diabetes preventive care, both individually and collectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All 16 states that passed mandates between 1997 and 1999 required coverage of diabetic monitors and strips, while 15 states required coverage of diabetes self management education. Only 1 state required coverage of periodic eye and foot exams. State mandates were positively associated with a 6.3 (P = 0.04) and a 5.8 (P = 0.03) percentage point increase in the probability of privately insured diabetic patient's performing SMBG and simultaneous receiving all three preventive care, respectively; state mandates were not significantly associated with receiving annual diabetic eye (0.05 percentage points decrease, P = 0.92) or foot exams (2.3 percentage points increase, P = 0.45).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Effects of state mandates varied by preventive care type, with state mandates being associated with a small increase in SMBG. We found no evidence that state mandates were effective in increasing receipt of annual eye or foot exams. The small or non-significant effects might be attributed to small numbers of insured people not having the benefits prior to the mandates' passage. If state mandates' purpose is to provide improved benefits to many persons, policy makers should consider determining the number of people who might benefit prior to passing the mandate.</p

The effect of tax subsidies on high health care expenditure burdens in the United States

Burdens, Tax subsidies, Equity, I18, H24,

Medicare Part D’s Impact on Antipsychotic Drug Use and Costs Among Elderly Patients Without Prior Drug Insurance

Medicare Part D’s implementation improved access to and affordability of prescription drugs for the elderly without prior drug insurance. Effects for specific drugs and drug classes are less well understood. We assessed Part D’s impact on antipsychotic medication (APM) utilization and out-of-pocket costs among elderly without prior drug insurance. Retail pharmacy claims from 3 nationwide pharmacy chains were used to analyze two time-series designs: 1) a Policy Model, to obtain a policymaker’s perspective: what was the overall impact of Part D on APM use and costs among elderly without drug insurance in 2005 with the opportunity to enroll?, and 2) a Clinical Model, to obtain a clinician’s perspective: what would happen to elderly without drug insurance in 2005 who did enroll in Part D—would they be able to get APMs? At what cost? Subgroup analyses among Part D enrollees evaluated potentially different effects for patients who received a subsidy and patients who used anti-dementia drugs. In the Policy Model, Part D implementation was associated with a 5% increase in APM use and a 37% reduction in out-of-pocket costs, suggesting a modest need for APMs among all previously uninsured elderly. Patients who did enroll in Part D (Clinical Model) had a 97% increase in APM use and a 62% decrease in out-of-pocket costs, suggesting that patients who needed APMs were able to access them at low cost through the Part D program. Part D implementation was associated with increased use and affordability of APMs for elderly without prior drug insurance