Objective: To compare surgical outcomes and expenditures at critical access hospitals that do versus do not participate in a hospital network among Medicare beneficiaries. Background: Critical access hospitals provide essential care to more than 80 million Americans. These hospitals, often rural, are located more than 35 miles away from another hospital and are required to maintain patient transfer agreements with other facilities capable of providing higher levels of care. Some critical access hospitals have gone further to formally participate in a hospital network. Methods: This was a cross-sectional retrospective study from 2014 to 2018 comparing 16,128 Medicare beneficiary admissions for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy, or hernia repair at critical access hospitals that do versus do not participate in a hospital network. Thirty-day mortality and readmissions were risk adjusted using multivariable logistic regression accounting for patient and hospital factors. Price-standardized, risk-adjusted Medicare expenditures were compared for the 30-day total episode payments consisting of index hospitalization, physician services, readmissions, and postacute care payments. Results: Beneficiaries (average age = 75.7 years, SD = 7.4) who obtained care at critical access hospitals in a hospital network were more likely to carry ≥2 Elixhauser comorbidities (68.7% vs. 62.8%, P < 0.001). Rates of 30-day mortality were higher at critical access hospitals in a hospital network (4.30% vs. 3.81%, OR = 1.11, P < 0.001). Similarly, readmission rates were higher at critical access hospitals that were in a hospital network (15.13% vs. 14.34%, OR = 1.06, P < 0.001). Additionally, total episode payments were found to be $960 higher per patient at critical access hospitals that were in a hospital network ($23,878 vs. $22,918, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Critical access hospitals within hospital networks provided care to more medically complex patients and were associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher costs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing common general surgery operations.
This economic evaluation examines variations in prices for surgical procedures under the Hospital Price Transparency Rule at hospitals within and outside hospital networks in the US.
Objectives: To identify the impact of clinical risk adjustment models for evaluating pain medication consumption differences between private rooms and a multibed ward. Background: Views of nature are reported to reduce anxiety and pain for patients. This often leads to prioritizing large windows with views for patient rooms; however, it is not clear how other factors influencing pain (e.g., patient demographics) may confound evaluations of room design. Methods: We identified 1,284 patients at the University of Michigan undergoing thyroidectomy where patients recovered in one of the two locations: a private room with a view to nature or a multibed ward with no windows. We used pain medication data from the electronic medical record and risk adjustment models to evaluate pain medication consumption between the room types. Results: Private room patients did not use more pain medications when measured using unadjusted morphine milligram equivalents (18.3 vs. 15.3 mg, p = .06). Risk adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, opioid history, and procedure subtype resulted in private room patients demonstrating higher consumption of morphine milliequivalents (17.5 vs. 15.5 mg, p < .01). In contrast, risk adjusting for age, gender, opioid history, and selected comorbidities estimated higher pain medication consumption for multibed ward patients relative to private rooms (16.27 vs. 15.51 mg, p < .05). Conclusion: Estimated differences of pain medication consumption for patients in differently designed rooms varied depending on the risk adjustment model. These findings underscore the importance of understanding appropriate clinical measurement and risk adjustment strategies to accurately estimate the impact of design, before applying research into practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.