Key result
Basic health insurance shows no difference vs private insurance for optimal STEMI medical therapy.
Why the study?
It is unknown whether disparities in treatments and outcomes of STEMI patients driven by insurance status apply to Switzerland, which has mandatory basic health insurance and optional supplementary private insurance.
Does basic health insurance compared to supplementary private health insurance affect treatments and outcomes in STEMI patients?
Observational (n=16,463)
Yes
Does basic health insurance compared to supplementary private health insurance affect treatments and outcomes in STEMI patients?
Odds Ratio: 1.05 (95% CI 0.93–1.19)
Absolute Event Rate: 38.4% vs 32.7%
p-value: p=0.40
Insurance status (basic vs supplementary private) does not significantly impact the administration of guideline-recommended treatments or clinical outcomes for STEMI patients in Switzerland, highlighting a high level of healthcare equity.
No association after adjustment suggests equitable STEMI care in Switzerland; leaves open generalizability and effects in other systems.
BACKGROUND: Large disparities in treatments and outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients driven by insurance status have been reported. However, it is unknown whether this applies to Switzerland, a country characterised by an overall high income, mandatory basic health insurance covering virtually all treatments and the option of a supplementary private health insurance allowing for full institution and doctor choice as well as a higher service standard. This study aimed to assess the impact of insurance status on treatments and outcomes in STEMI patients in Switzerland. METHODS: STEMI patients enrolled in the nationwide Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland (AMIS) Plus registry between 2005 and 2023 were analysed. We compared patients with basic health insurance only to those with supplementary private health insurance with respect to optimal medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and outcomes. Primary outcome measures were rates of optimal medical therapy and full guideline-recommended treatment (FGRT) (defined as optimal medical therapy plus PCI). Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), length of stay and 1-year all-cause mortality after discharge. Multivariate logistic mixed-effects models examined whether insurance type influenced treatments and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 16,463 patients, 13,023 (79.1%) had only basic health insurance. Patients with basic health insurance only were younger, more often males and had higher rates of obesity, diabetes and active smoking, but lower rates of cancer than supplementary private health insurance patients. In addition, they more often received optimal medical therapy and FGRT. Patients with basic health insurance only had higher rates of in-hospital mortality and MACCE. However, after adjusting for covariates, no statistically significant associations were identified between insurance type and access to optimal medical therapy or FGRT, in-hospital mortality, MACCE, length of stay or 1-year mortality after discharge. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed no significant association between insurance status and treatments or outcomes of STEMI patients, suggesting a high level of equity in acute cardiac care in Switzerland.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loosli et al. (2026) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=16,463). Basic health insurance vs. Supplementary private health insurance was evaluated on Immediate optimal medical therapy administration (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19, p=0.40). Basic health insurance was not significantly associated with access to immediate optimal medical therapy (adjusted OR 1.05) or full guideline-recommended treatment compared to private insurance in STEMI patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: