The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Special Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 329:1784-1789 December 9, 1993 Number 24
NextNext

The Effect of Cost-Containment Policies on Rates of Coronary Revascularization in California
Kenneth M. Langa, and Elliot J. Sussman

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Lower rates of use of resources have been reported for the treatment of hospitalized patients covered by Medicaid than for privately insured patients. Cost-containment policies may exacerbate such differences in the use of hospital resources. We studied patients with ischemic heart disease who received care at nonfederal hospitals in California in 1983 (the year a Medicaid cost-containment program was implemented), in 1985, or in 1988. Within this sample of patients, we compared the rates of coronary revascularization (coronary-artery bypass surgery or coronary angioplasty) among patients covered by Medicaid, patients with private insurance covering fee-for-service care, and patients enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO).

Methods Logistic-regression models were used to determine adjusted odds ratios for the use of coronary revascularization procedures in patients with different types of insurance, with control for demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics. The study samples were made up of 49,167 patients in 1983, 47,809 in 1985, and 44,631 in 1988.

Results The frequency of revascularization increased in all three insurance groups from 1983 to 1988, but it did so much faster in the fee-for-service and HMO groups than in the Medicaid group. Patients with private fee-for-service insurance were 1.66 times as likely as Medicaid patients to undergo revascularization in 1983 (P<0.01), 2.01 times as likely in 1985 (P<0.01), and 2.33 times as likely in 1988 (P<0.01). Patients enrolled in HMOs were 0.96 times as likely as Medicaid patients to undergo revascularization in 1983 (P<0.05), 1.23 times as likely in 1985 (P<0.01), and 1.53 times as likely in 1988 (P<0.01).

Conclusions The frequency of coronary revascularization in California in 1983 was nearly twice as high for patients with private fee-for-service insurance as for patients enrolled in HMOs or for Medicaid recipients. The implementation that year of stringent cost-control measures by Medicaid may explain the slower increase in the frequency of revascularization over five years among Medicaid recipients as compared with patients in the fee-for-service and HMO groups. Different incentives in fee-for-service and HMO practice may explain the lower frequency of revascularization among patients enrolled in HMOs, although the rates of increase for these two groups were about the same from 1983 to 1988.


Source Information

From the Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies (K.M.L.) and the Pritzker School of Medicine (K.M.L., E.J.S.), University of Chicago, Chicago. Presented in preliminary form at the national meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1992.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Sussman at Lehigh Valley Hospital, Cedar Crest and I-78, P.O. Box 689, Allentown, PA 18105-1556.

Full Text of this Article


This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.