急诊科是医疗补助中初级保健的替代品还是补充品?

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000270
Alina Denham, Elaine L Hill, Maria Raven, Michael Mendoza, Mical Raz, Peter J Veazie
{"title":"急诊科是医疗补助中初级保健的替代品还是补充品?","authors":"Alina Denham, Elaine L Hill, Maria Raven, Michael Mendoza, Mical Raz, Peter J Veazie","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policies to decrease low-acuity emergency department (ED) use have traditionally assumed that EDs are a substitute for unavailable primary care (PC). However, such policies can exacerbate ED overcrowding, rather than ameliorate it, if patients use EDs to complement, rather than substitute, their PC use. We tested whether Medicaid managed care enrolees visit the ED for nonemergent and PC treatable conditions to substitute for or to complement PC. Based on consumer choice theory, we modelled county-level monthly ED visit rate as a function of PC supply and used 2012-2015 New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient data and non-linear least squares method to test substitution vs complementarity. In the post-Medicaid expansion period (2014-2015), ED and PC are substitutes state-wide, but are complements in highly urban and poorer counties during nights and weekends. There is no evidence of complementarity before the expansion (2012-2013). Analyses by PC provider demonstrate that the relationship between ED and PC differs depending on whether PC is provided by physicians or advanced practice providers. Policies to reduce low-acuity ED use via improved PC access in Medicaid are likely to be most effective if they focus on increasing actual appointment availability, ideally by physicians, in areas with low PC provider supply. Different aspects of PC access may be differently related to low-acuity ED use.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the emergency department used as a substitute or a complement to primary care in Medicaid?\",\"authors\":\"Alina Denham, Elaine L Hill, Maria Raven, Michael Mendoza, Mical Raz, Peter J Veazie\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1744133123000270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Policies to decrease low-acuity emergency department (ED) use have traditionally assumed that EDs are a substitute for unavailable primary care (PC). However, such policies can exacerbate ED overcrowding, rather than ameliorate it, if patients use EDs to complement, rather than substitute, their PC use. We tested whether Medicaid managed care enrolees visit the ED for nonemergent and PC treatable conditions to substitute for or to complement PC. Based on consumer choice theory, we modelled county-level monthly ED visit rate as a function of PC supply and used 2012-2015 New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient data and non-linear least squares method to test substitution vs complementarity. In the post-Medicaid expansion period (2014-2015), ED and PC are substitutes state-wide, but are complements in highly urban and poorer counties during nights and weekends. There is no evidence of complementarity before the expansion (2012-2013). Analyses by PC provider demonstrate that the relationship between ED and PC differs depending on whether PC is provided by physicians or advanced practice providers. Policies to reduce low-acuity ED use via improved PC access in Medicaid are likely to be most effective if they focus on increasing actual appointment availability, ideally by physicians, in areas with low PC provider supply. Different aspects of PC access may be differently related to low-acuity ED use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000270\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000270","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

减少低视力急诊科(ED)使用的政策传统上认为ED是不可用的初级保健(PC)的替代品。然而,如果患者使用ED来补充而不是替代他们的PC使用,这种政策可能会加剧ED过度拥挤,而不是改善它。我们测试了医疗补助管理的护理注册者是否因非合并和PC可治疗的疾病而去急诊室就诊,以替代或补充PC。基于消费者选择理论,我们将县级每月急诊就诊率建模为PC供应的函数,并使用2012-2015年纽约州规划与研究合作系统(SPARCS)门诊数据和非线性最小二乘法来测试替代性与互补性。在后医疗补助扩展期(2014-2015年),ED和PC在全州范围内是替代品,但在高度城市化和贫困的县,在夜间和周末是补充。在扩大(2012-2013年)之前,没有证据表明存在互补性。PC提供商的分析表明,ED和PC之间的关系因PC是由医生还是高级实践提供商提供而不同。通过改善医疗补助中的个人电脑使用率来减少低视力ED使用的政策,如果侧重于增加实际预约的可用性,最好是由医生在个人电脑供应商供应不足的地区进行预约,那么可能是最有效的。PC访问的不同方面可能与低视力ED的使用不同地相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is the emergency department used as a substitute or a complement to primary care in Medicaid?

Policies to decrease low-acuity emergency department (ED) use have traditionally assumed that EDs are a substitute for unavailable primary care (PC). However, such policies can exacerbate ED overcrowding, rather than ameliorate it, if patients use EDs to complement, rather than substitute, their PC use. We tested whether Medicaid managed care enrolees visit the ED for nonemergent and PC treatable conditions to substitute for or to complement PC. Based on consumer choice theory, we modelled county-level monthly ED visit rate as a function of PC supply and used 2012-2015 New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) outpatient data and non-linear least squares method to test substitution vs complementarity. In the post-Medicaid expansion period (2014-2015), ED and PC are substitutes state-wide, but are complements in highly urban and poorer counties during nights and weekends. There is no evidence of complementarity before the expansion (2012-2013). Analyses by PC provider demonstrate that the relationship between ED and PC differs depending on whether PC is provided by physicians or advanced practice providers. Policies to reduce low-acuity ED use via improved PC access in Medicaid are likely to be most effective if they focus on increasing actual appointment availability, ideally by physicians, in areas with low PC provider supply. Different aspects of PC access may be differently related to low-acuity ED use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland. Procedural fairness to recalibrate the power imbalance in health decision-making: comment on the report: 'Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage'. Navigating conflicting expectations in addressing healthcare scarcity: a q-methodology study on the Dutch National Health Care Institute. Including carer health-related quality of life in NICE health technology assessments in the United Kingdom. The inefficient effects of non-clinical factors on health care costs.
×
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