Healthcare Use and Expenditures in Rural Survivors of Hospitalization for Sepsis.

Abstract

Objectives: Sepsis survivors have greater healthcare use than those surviving hospitalizations for other reasons, yet factors associated with greater healthcare use in this population remain ill-defined. Rural Americans are older, have more chronic illnesses, and face unique barriers to healthcare access, which could affect postsepsis healthcare use. Therefore, we compared healthcare use and expenditures among rural and urban sepsis survivors. We hypothesized that rural survivors would have greater healthcare use and expenditures.

Design, setting, and patients: To test this hypothesis, we used data from 106,189 adult survivors of a sepsis hospitalization included in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and Medicare Supplemental database between 2013 and 2018.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: We identified hospitalizations for severe sepsis and septic shock using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9) or 1CD-10 codes. We used Metropolitan Statistical Area classifications to categorize rurality. We measured emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient hospitalizations, skilled nursing facility admissions, primary care visits, physical therapy visits, occupational therapy visits, and home healthcare visits for the year following sepsis hospitalizations. We calculated the total expenditures for each of these categories. We compared outcomes between rural and urban patients using multivariable regression and adjusted for covariates. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, admission type, insurance type, U.S. Census Bureau region, employment status, and sepsis severity, those living in rural areas had 17% greater odds of having an ED visit (odds ratio [OR] 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.22; p < 0.001), 9% lower odds of having a primary care visit (OR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94; p < 0.001), and 12% lower odds of receiving home healthcare (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93; p < 0.001). Despite higher levels of ED use and equivalent levels of hospital readmissions, expenditures in these areas were 14% (OR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91; p < 0.001) and 9% (OR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96; p < 0.001) lower among rural survivors, respectively, suggesting these services may be used for lower-acuity conditions.

Conclusions: In this large cohort study, we report important differences in healthcare use and expenditures between rural and urban sepsis survivors. Future research and policy work is needed to understand how best to optimize sepsis survivorship across the urban-rural continuum.