Addressing the quality and cost of cholecystectomy at a safety net hospital

Outcomes after clipping and endovascular coiling for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage among dual-eligible beneficiaries

Dual-eligible beneficiaries, individuals with both Medicare and Medicaid coverage, represent a high-cost and vulnerable population; however, literature regarding outcomes is sparse. We characterized outcomes in dual-eligible beneficiaries treated for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) compared to Medicare only, Medicaid only, private insurance, and self-pay. A 10-year cross-sectional study of the National Inpatient Sample was conducted. Adult aSAH emergency admissions treated by neurosurgical clipping or endovascular coiling were included. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for confounders. A total of 57,666 patients met inclusion criteria. Dual-eligibles comprised 2.8% of admissions and were on average younger (62.4 years) than Medicare (70.0 years), older than all other groups, and had higher mean National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Severity Scores than all other groups (p ≤ 0.001). Among patients treated by clipping, dual-eligibles were less often discharged to home compared to Medicare (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.87, p < 0.05) and all other insurance groups, p < 0.01. Likewise, those who received coiling were less often discharged to home compared to Medicaid (aOR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23-0.73), private (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.23-0.76) and self-pay patients (aOR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46). They also had increased odds of poor National Inpatient Sample-Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Outcome Measures compared to Medicaid, private, and self-pay patients, all p < 0.05. There were no differences in inpatient mortality or total complications. In conclusion, dual-eligible patients had higher aSAH severity scores, less often discharged home, and among patients who received coiling, dual-eligibles had increased odds of poor outcome. Dual-eligible patients with aSAH represent a vulnerable population that may benefit from targeted clinical and public policy initiatives.

The impact of hospital safety-net status on inpatient outcomes for brain tumor craniotomy: a 10-year nationwide analysis

Background

Outcome disparities have been documented at safety-net hospitals (SNHs), which disproportionately serve vulnerable patient populations. Using a nationwide retrospective cohort, we assessed inpatient outcomes following brain tumor craniotomy at SNHs in the United States.

Methods

We identified all craniotomy procedures in the National Inpatient Sample from 2002–2011 for brain tumors: glioma, metastasis, meningioma, and vestibular schwannoma. Safety-net burden was calculated as the number of Medicaid plus uninsured admissions divided by total admissions. Hospitals in the top quartile of burden were defined as SNHs. The association between SNH status and in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, complications, hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), length of stay (LOS), and costs were assessed. Multivariate regression adjusted for patient, hospital, and severity characteristics.

Results

304,719 admissions were analyzed. The most common subtype was glioma (43.8%). Of 1,206 unique hospitals, 242 were SNHs. SNH admissions were more likely to be non-white (P < .001), low income (P < .001), and have higher severity scores (P = .034). Mortality rates were higher at SNHs for metastasis admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, P = .025), and SNHs had higher complication rates for meningioma (OR = 1.34, P = .003) and all tumor types combined (OR = 1.17, P = .034). However, there were no differences at SNHs for discharge disposition or HACs. LOS and hospital costs were elevated at SNHs for all subtypes, culminating in a 10% and 9% increase in LOS and costs for the overall population, respectively (all P < .001).

Conclusions

SNHs demonstrated poorer inpatient outcomes for brain tumor craniotomy. Further analyses of the differences observed and potential interventions to ameliorate interhospital disparities are warranted.

The effect of hospital safety-net burden on outcomes, cost, and reportable quality metrics after emergent clipping and coiling of ruptured cerebral aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Safety-net hospitals deliver care to a substantial share of vulnerable patient populations and are disproportionately impacted by hospital payment reform policies. Complex elective procedures performed at safety-net facilities are associated with worse outcomes and higher costs. The effects of hospital safety-net burden on highly specialized, emergent, and resource-intensive conditions are poorly understood. The authors examined the effects of hospital safety-net burden on outcomes and costs after emergent neurosurgical intervention for ruptured cerebral aneurysms.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2002 to 2011. Patients ≥ 18 years old who underwent emergent surgical clipping and endovascular coiling for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) were included. Safety-net burden was defined as the proportion of Medicaid and uninsured patients treated at each hospital included in the NIS database. Hospitals that performed clipping and coiling were stratified as low-burden (LBH), medium-burden (MBH), and high-burden (HBH) hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 34,647 patients with ruptured cerebral aneurysms underwent clipping and 23,687 underwent coiling. Compared to LBHs, HBHs were more likely to treat black, Hispanic, Medicaid, and uninsured patients (p < 0.001). HBHs were also more likely to be associated with teaching hospitals (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed among the burden groups in the severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage. After adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, treatment at an HBH did not predict in-hospital mortality, poor outcome, length of stay, costs, or likelihood of a hospital-acquired condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their financial burden, safety-net hospitals provide equitable care after surgical clipping and endovascular coiling for ruptured cerebral aneurysms and do not incur higher hospital costs. Safety-net hospitals may have the capacity to provide equitable surgical care for highly specialized emergent neurosurgical conditions.

In-Hospital Outcomes of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock at Safety-Net Hospitals in the United States (from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample)

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) are hospitals that serve a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid or uninsured and have been reported to have poor outcomes compared with non-SNHs. Procedural and clinical outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) at SNHs have not been well described. Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2011 was queried to identify STEMI-CS and age ≥18. SNHs were defined as hospitals with the highest number of inpatient stays that were paid by Medicaid or were uninsured (the top quartile). A total of 23,229 STEMI-CS of which 3,639 (15.7%) were treated at SNHs. Admissions to SNHs were younger (mean age 66.0 vs 67.2, p < 0.001), more likely men (64.0% vs 62.2%, p = 0.04), more frequently ethnic minorities (Black; 11.0% vs 6.0%, Hispanic 20.4% vs 5.8%, p < 0.001), and had higher Elixhauser ≥4 (25.8% vs 21.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary interventions were less performed (60.4% vs 65.8%, p < 0.001) whereas administrations of thrombolysis (2.9% vs 2.1%, p = 0.001) were more frequent at SNHs. Coronary artery bypass and the use of mechanical circulatory support was similar. In-hospital mortality was significantly elevated at SNHs (36.6% vs 32.7%, adjusted odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.39) whereas new dialysis, stroke, and fatal arrhythmias were similar. The median length of stay was similar (6 vs 7 days, p = 0.58) but the median cost was higher (40,175 vs 38,012 US dollars, p = 0.01) at SNHs. SNHs had lower utilization of percutaneous coronary intervention and higher in-hospital mortality compared with non-SNHs in STEMI-CS. Further cause analysis is warranted to improve outcomes of STEMI-CS admitted at SNHs.