Search

Objective: Over 25% of the 27 million uninsured individuals in the United States are eligible for Medicaid. Many hospitals have insurance linkage programs that assist eligible patients with enrollment, but little is known about the impact of these programs on care utilization. This research assessed health care utilization and health outcomes among patients enrolled in Medicaid via a hospital-based insurance linkage program. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults aged 18–64 admitted to the hospital from 2016 to 2021. Those who obtained insurance retroactively via insurance linkage (RI) were compared with those who presented with Medicaid (MI) or remained uninsured (UI). The primary outcome was the presence of at least one visit with a primary care provider (PCP) in the 12 months following index admission. Secondary outcomes included having an assigned PCP, ED revisits, and hospital readmissions. For patients with diabetes and hypertension, 12-month hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and blood pressure (BP) readings were tracked. Results: Of 3882 patients admitted with no insurance, 2905 (74.8%) were enrolled in insurance (RI). In multivariable analysis, RI patients were 14% more likely (OR 1.14, p = 0.020) to have completed at least one PCP visit by 12 months after index admission compared to those with preexisting Medicaid (MI), and uninsured patients were 29% less likely (OR 0.71, p = 0.003). MI and RI patients also had more ED revisits (p < 0.001) and greater 12-month reductions in blood pressure (p < 0.001) compared with uninsured patients. Conclusion: Hospital-based insurance linkage reached three-quarters of uninsured patients and was associated with increased utilization of acute and outpatient health care services. An acute care encounter represents an opportunity to connect patients to insurance, a key step toward improving their health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. Objective: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. Design: A matched cohort study Participants: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals. Main Measures: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality. Key Results: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality. Limitations: The study used claims-based data. Conclusions: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term "multimorbidity" identifies high-risk, complex patients and is conventionally defined as ≥2 comorbidities. However, this labels almost all older patients as multimorbid, making this definition less useful for physicians, hospitals, and policymakers. Objective: Develop new medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia patients. We developed three medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions as the presence of single, double, or triple combinations of comorbidities — called Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs) — associated with at least doubling the risk of 30-day mortality for AMI and pneumonia, or one-and-a-half times for HF patients, compared to typical patients with these conditions. Design: Cohort-based matching study Participants: One hundred percent Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with inpatient admissions between 2016 and 2019 for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Main Measures: Thirty-day all-location mortality Key Results: We defined multimorbidity as the presence of ≥1 QCS. The new definitions labeled fewer patients as multimorbid with a much higher risk of death compared to the conventional definition (≥2 comorbidities). The proportions of patients labeled as multimorbid using the new definition versus the conventional definition were: for AMI 47% versus 87% (p value<0.0001), HF 53% versus 98% (p value<0.0001), and pneumonia 57% versus 91% (p value<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher among patients with ≥1 QCS compared to ≥2 comorbidities: for AMI 15.0% versus 9.5% (p<0.0001), HF 9.9% versus 7.0% (p <0.0001), and pneumonia 18.4% versus 13.2% (p <0.0001). Conclusion: The presence of ≥2 comorbidities identified almost all patients as multimorbid. In contrast, our new QCS-based definitions selected more specific combinations of comorbidities associated with substantial excess risk in older patients admitted for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Thus, our new definitions offer a better approach to identifying multimorbid patients, allowing physicians, hospitals, and policymakers to more effectively use such information to consider focused interventions for these vulnerable patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]