Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine differences between healthcare use and associated costs in rural and urban at-risk drinkers. METHOD: Primary healthcare utilization and cost data were collected from 1995 to 1998 on rural (n = 215) and urban (n = 228) cohorts of drinkers residing in six southeastern states who met criteria for at-risk drinking. Data were obtained through subject interview and from abstracts of medical and pharmacy records. RESULTS: Overall healthcare costs were not significantly different between the rural and urban cohorts. For subjects who incurred any hospital costs (including emergency room [ER] visits), however, costs were significantly greater (p < .01) for rural patients (median = dollars 2,561) than for urban patients (median = dollars 865). Hospital costs associated with patients' ER visits and any subsequent admissions were also greater (p < .01) for rural patients (median = dollars 1,004) than for urban patients (median = dollars 512). Use of healthcare services was significantly more likely to occur among women (p < .0001), individuals with lower overall self-reported physical health (p < .01) and individuals with health insurance (p < .0001). Among subjects who used healthcare services, greater costs were significantly associated with older age (p < .05), being female (p <.0001), having lower overall physical health (p < .0001) and having health insurance (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: While overall healthcare costs are not significantly different between rural and urban residents in this sample of at-risk drinkers, there are some notable differences in the costs associated with inpatient and ER services.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nietert et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: