Do For-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures?

Antonio J Trujillo PhD (Commentary Author)
{"title":"Do For-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures?","authors":"Antonio J Trujillo PhD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Do for-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures compared with not-for-profit health plans?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cohort study.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>In unadjusted analyses, for-profit health plan beneficiaries had higher rates of all high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries; the difference was significant for 4 out of 12 procedures (see Table 1). Rates of usage remained higher in for-profit plans after adjustment for participants’ sociodemographic factors, county of residence, and health plan characteristics (see Table 1).<span><div><div><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Table 1</strong> Difference in rates of high-cost procedures between for-profit plans and not-for-profit plans.</td></tr><tr><td>Procedure</td><td>Difference per 10,000 beneficiaries (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Unadjusted</td><td>Adjusted for sociodemographic factors<sup>∗</sup></td><td>Adjusted for health plan characteristics<sup>†</sup>, sociodemographic</td><td>Adjusted for county of residence<sup>‡</sup>, sociodemographic factors, health plan characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Hysterectomy</td><td>2.6 (−0.3 to 5.5)</td><td>2.7 (−0.2 to 5.6)</td><td>2.2 (−1.0 to 5.4)</td><td>2.5 (0.6 to 4.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Prostatectomy</td><td>4.3 (−1.4 to 10.1)</td><td>3.8 (−1.9 to 9.6)</td><td>3.3 (−3.1 to 9.8)</td><td>6.3 (0.2 to 12.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Closed cholecystectomy</td><td>5.8 (−0.2 to 11.9)</td><td>6.1 (0.1 to 12.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.0 (0.4 to 13.6)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.7 (3.4 to 11.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Open cholecystectomy</td><td>0.8 (−1.6 to 3.1)</td><td>0.8 (−1.5 to 3.2)</td><td>0.6 (−2.1 to 3.3)</td><td>1.9 (−0.1 to 3.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Partial colectomy</td><td>4.0 (−1.0 to 9.0)</td><td>4.4 (−0.6 to 9.4)</td><td>6.0 (0.3 to 11.6)<sup>§</sup></td><td>8.4 (4.8 to 12.0)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Reduction of femur fracture</td><td>2.6 (−2.9 to 8.2)</td><td>6.0 (0.5 to 11.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>5.3 (−0.9 to 11.4)</td><td>6.4 (1.1 to 11.6)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total knee replacement</td><td>5.1 (−1.0 to 11.2)</td><td>5.1 (−0.9 to 11.2)</td><td>5.7 (−0.9 to 12.4)</td><td>8.3 (3.1 to 13.6)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total hip replacement</td><td>2.4 (−5.1 to 10.0)</td><td>3.0 (−4.5 to 10.5)</td><td>2.3 (−6.2 to 10.9)</td><td>5.4 (0.8 to 9.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Cardiac catheterisation</td><td>31.6 (9.0 to 54.2)<sup>§</sup></td><td>31.0 (8.7 to 53.3)<sup>§</sup></td><td>15.2 (−9.2 to 39.5)</td><td>26.5 (14.1 to 38.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Coronary artery bypass grafting</td><td>10.3 (2.5 to 15.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>10.7 (3.1 to 18.3)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.6 (−1.0 to 16.2)</td><td>6.3 (0 to 12.7)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty</td><td>8.5 (1.0 to 16.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>9.0 (1.6 to 16.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>6.0 (−2.3 to 14.3)</td><td>2.6 (−2.8 to 8.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Carotid endarterectomy</td><td>5.4 (1.0 to 9.9)<sup>§</sup></td><td>6.0 (1.6 to 10.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>2.3 (−2.5 to 7.1)</td><td>4.2 (1.1 to 7.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>∗</sup>Sociodemographic factors: sex, age, race or ethnic group, income, education, rural or urban residence, Medicaid eligibility. <sup>†</sup>Health plan characteristics: years in operation, number of beneficiaries, health plan model type (independent practice association, network, mixed, group or staff). <sup>‡</sup>Differences weighted according to county of residence of beneficiaries. <sup>§</sup><span><math><mtext>P&lt;0.05</mtext></math></span>.</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span></p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>There is no evidence that for-profit heath plan beneficiaries are less likely to receive high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 116-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.021","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462941004000567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Question

Do for-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures compared with not-for-profit health plans?

Study design

Cohort study.

Main results

In unadjusted analyses, for-profit health plan beneficiaries had higher rates of all high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries; the difference was significant for 4 out of 12 procedures (see Table 1). Rates of usage remained higher in for-profit plans after adjustment for participants’ sociodemographic factors, county of residence, and health plan characteristics (see Table 1).

Table 1 Difference in rates of high-cost procedures between for-profit plans and not-for-profit plans.
ProcedureDifference per 10,000 beneficiaries (95% CI)
UnadjustedAdjusted for sociodemographic factorsAdjusted for health plan characteristics, sociodemographicAdjusted for county of residence, sociodemographic factors, health plan characteristics
Hysterectomy2.6 (−0.3 to 5.5)2.7 (−0.2 to 5.6)2.2 (−1.0 to 5.4)2.5 (0.6 to 4.3)§
Prostatectomy4.3 (−1.4 to 10.1)3.8 (−1.9 to 9.6)3.3 (−3.1 to 9.8)6.3 (0.2 to 12.3)§
Closed cholecystectomy5.8 (−0.2 to 11.9)6.1 (0.1 to 12.1)§7.0 (0.4 to 13.6)§7.7 (3.4 to 11.9)§
Open cholecystectomy0.8 (−1.6 to 3.1)0.8 (−1.5 to 3.2)0.6 (−2.1 to 3.3)1.9 (−0.1 to 3.8)
Partial colectomy4.0 (−1.0 to 9.0)4.4 (−0.6 to 9.4)6.0 (0.3 to 11.6)§8.4 (4.8 to 12.0)§
Reduction of femur fracture2.6 (−2.9 to 8.2)6.0 (0.5 to 11.4)§5.3 (−0.9 to 11.4)6.4 (1.1 to 11.6)§
Total knee replacement5.1 (−1.0 to 11.2)5.1 (−0.9 to 11.2)5.7 (−0.9 to 12.4)8.3 (3.1 to 13.6)§
Total hip replacement2.4 (−5.1 to 10.0)3.0 (−4.5 to 10.5)2.3 (−6.2 to 10.9)5.4 (0.8 to 9.9)§
Cardiac catheterisation31.6 (9.0 to 54.2)§31.0 (8.7 to 53.3)§15.2 (−9.2 to 39.5)26.5 (14.1 to 38.9)§
Coronary artery bypass grafting10.3 (2.5 to 15.1)§10.7 (3.1 to 18.3)§7.6 (−1.0 to 16.2)6.3 (0 to 12.7)§
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty8.5 (1.0 to 16.1)§9.0 (1.6 to 16.4)§6.0 (−2.3 to 14.3)2.6 (−2.8 to 8.0)
Carotid endarterectomy5.4 (1.0 to 9.9)§6.0 (1.6 to 10.4)§2.3 (−2.5 to 7.1)4.2 (1.1 to 7.3)§
Sociodemographic factors: sex, age, race or ethnic group, income, education, rural or urban residence, Medicaid eligibility. Health plan characteristics: years in operation, number of beneficiaries, health plan model type (independent practice association, network, mixed, group or staff). Differences weighted according to county of residence of beneficiaries. §P<0.05.

Authors’ conclusions

There is no evidence that for-profit heath plan beneficiaries are less likely to receive high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
营利性医疗计划是否会限制高成本的医疗程序?
问题与非营利健康计划相比,营利性健康计划是否限制了获得高成本手术?研究设计队列研究。主要结果在未经调整的分析中,营利性健康计划受益人在所有高成本程序中的比率高于非营利健康计划受益人;12个程序中的4个程序的差异是显著的(见表1)。在对参与者的社会人口因素、居住县和健康计划特征进行调整后,营利性计划的使用率仍然较高(见表1)。表1营利性计划和非营利计划之间高成本手术率的差异。每10000名受益人的程序差异(95%置信区间)未经调整根据社会人口因素进行调整*根据健康计划特征进行调整†,根据居住县进行社会人口因素调整⏹,社会人口因素,健康计划特征子宫切除术2.6(-0.3至5.5)2.7(-0.2至5.6)2.2(-1.0至5.4)2.5(0.6至4.3)§前列腺切除术4.3(-1.4至10.1)3.8(-1.9至9.6)3.3(-3.1至9.8)6.3(0.2至12.3)§闭合性胆囊切除术5.8(-0.2到11.9)6.1(0.1至12.1)§7.0(0.4至13.6)§7.7(3.4至11.9)§开放性胆囊切除手术0.8(-1.6至3.1)0.8(-1.5至3.2)0.6(-2.1至3.3)1.9(-0.1至3.8)部分结肠切除术4.0(−1.0至9.0)4.4(−0.6至9.4)6.0(0.3至11.6)§8.4(4.8至12.0§心脏导管31.6(9.0至54.2)§31.0(8.7至53.3)§15.2(−9.2至39.5)26.5(14.1至38.9)§冠状动脉旁路移植10.3(2.5至15.1)§10.7(3.1至18.3)§7.6(−1.0至16.2)6.3(0至12.7)§经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术8.5(1.0至16.1)§9.0(1.6至16.4)§6.0(−2.3至14.3)2.6(−2.8至8.0)颈动脉内膜切除术5.4(1.0至9.9)§6.01.6至10.4§2.3(-2.5至7.1)4.2(1.1至7.3)§*社会地理因素:性别、年龄、种族或民族、收入、教育、农村或城市居住、医疗补助资格。†健康计划特点:运营年限、受益人数量、健康计划模式类型(独立执业协会、网络、混合、团体或员工)根据受益人居住的县加权的差异。§P<;0.05.作者的结论没有证据表明,营利性健康计划受益人比非营利健康计划受益人接受高成本手术的可能性更小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
High-quality nutrition counselling for hypercholesterolemia by public health nurses in rural areas does not affect total blood cholesterol No association between mobile phone usage and development of acoustic neuroma Retaplase plus abciximab improves non-fatal outcomes, but not overall survival in people with diabetes and acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Intravenous magnesium sulphate does not improve survival or disability outcomes in people with stroke Rate of major complications is higher in laparoscopic than abdominal hysterectomy but quality of life improves with both procedures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1