Key result
Patients with private insurance were more likely than uninsured patients to be initially admitted to a hospital offering revascularization (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.30-1.51) and to undergo the procedure.
Why the study?
Does insurance status affect the probability of receiving cardiac revascularization across different phases of care in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=5,857)
Yes
Does insurance status affect the probability of receiving cardiac revascularization across different phases of care in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Odds Ratio: 1.4 (95% CI 1.3–1.51)
Disparities in cardiac revascularization rates based on insurance status and race are the cumulative result of differences in care across multiple phases, from initial admission to post-hospital readmission.
Insurance status linked to revascularization access disparities; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of race, payor, and gender in determining the use of cardiac services, including revascularization procedures (bypass surgery and angioplasty). However, there has been less investigation into where and when in the process of care differences in utilization arise. In this report, the authors examined the sequence of events leading to the use of revascularization procedures, identifying four phases of care (prehospital, intrahospital, interhospital, and posthospital). Following a cohort of 5857 patients admitted to California hospitals with acute myocardial infarction in 1991, the authors found differences in treatment probabilities during nearly every phase for different racial and payor groups. For example, compared with patients who are uninsured, patients with private insurance were more likely to be admitted initially to a hospital offering revascularization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 1.51). Moreover, once admitted to such a hospital, private patients were more likely to undergo revascularization (adjusted OR = 2.30; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.94). They were also more likely to undergo transfer to receive revascularization (adjusted OR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.45), and to be readmitted for revascularization (adjusted OR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.13 to 2.27). Previously reported discrepancies in service use represent the cumulative effects of multiple phases during which different racial and payor groups experience different processes of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blustein et al. (1995) conducted a cohort in acute myocardial infarction (n=5,857). Private insurance vs. Uninsured was evaluated on Initial admission to a hospital offering revascularization (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.51). Patients with private insurance were more likely than uninsured patients to be initially admitted to a hospital offering revascularization (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.30-1.51) and to undergo the procedure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: