Search

Background: The requirement of copayments for emergency care is thought to control costs by reducing “inappropriate” visits to the emergency department. However, requiring copayments may lead to adverse outcomes if patients delay seeking care for emergency conditions. To determine whether such requirements are associated with delays in seeking care, we examined the length of time from the onset of symptoms to arrival at the hospital among patients with myocardial infarction who did or did not have required insurance copayments. Methods: All patients were enrolled in a single health maintenance organization (HMO) and presented with myocardial infarction at 1 of 19 hospitals in King County, Washington, from 1989 through 1994. There were 602 patients whose health insurance required a copayment for emergency department care (range, $25 to $100) and 729 patients with no copayment requirement. Data on the time to presentation were obtained from a review of ambulance and hospital records. Results: The median length of time from the onset of symptoms to arrival at the hospital, as adjusted for age, sex, and race, was 135 minutes for the copayment group and 137 minutes for the group with no copayment (95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -19 to +16 minutes). There was no significant association between the presence or absence of a copayment requirement and the time to arrival at the hospital after adjustment for calendar year, income, educational level, cardiac history, or clinical symptoms. Since some patients may be unaware of their copayment requirement, we performed a subgroup analysis of data on patients who had a previous visit to the emergency department with the same copayment status — that is, of patients who were likely to know about their copayment. This analysis also showed no significant association between the requirement for a copayment and delays in seeking treatment. Conclusions: For privately insured patients in this HMO, the requirement of modest, fixed copayments for emergency services did not lead to delays in seeking treatment for myocardial infarction. (N Engl J Med 1997;336:1722-9.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several relatively small randomized trials have shown that primary angioplasty results in a better short-term outcome than thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. These results, however, have not been duplicated other than in investigational trials. Methods: We compared mortality during hospitalization and long-term mortality, as well as the use of resources, among 1050 patients in a primary-angioplasty group and 2095 patients in a thrombolytic-therapy group. Patients were selected from the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Registry cohort of 12,331 consecutive patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction to 19 Seattle hospitals between 1988 and 1994. Because of the potential for selection bias, several subgroup analyses were performed that included patients eligible for thrombolysis, high-risk patients, and patients in the primary-angioplasty group who were treated at hospitals with high volumes of angioplasty. Results: There was no significant difference in mortality during hospitalization or long-term follow-up between patients in the thrombolytic-therapy group and those in the primary-angioplasty group (mortality during hospitalization, 5.6 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively; P = 0.93; adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of death within three years after primary angioplasty, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.2). There was also no significant difference in mortality between high-risk subgroups of patients in the two treatment groups. The rates of procedures and costs were lower among patients in the thrombolytic-therapy group both at the time of hospital discharge and after three years of follow-up (30 percent fewer coronary angiograms, 15 percent fewer coronary angioplasties, and 13 percent lower costs after three years of follow-up). Conclusions: In a community setting, we observed no benefit in terms of either mortality or the use of resources with a strategy of primary angioplasty rather than thrombolytic therapy in a large cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction. (N Engl J Med 1996;335:1253-60.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the past decade the use of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction has substantially increased. Among the possible contributing factors, the increasing availability of cardiac catheterization facilities was the focus of our investigation. Methods: We investigated whether the availability of cardiac catheterization facilities at an admitting hospital was associated with the likelihood that a patient would undergo coronary angiography. After adjusting for age, sex, cardiac history, and cardiac complications during hospitalization, we evaluated this association in 5867 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 19 Seattle-area hospitals. We also assessed the association between the presence of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities and in-hospital mortality. Results: Patients admitted to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities were far more likely to undergo coronary angiography (odds ratio, 3.21; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.81 to 3.67) than patients admitted to hospitals where transfer to another institution would be required to perform cardiac catheterization. Admission to a hospital with on-site facilities was more strongly associated with the use of coronary angiography than any characteristic of the patient. Although our study had limited power to detect differences in mortality, the availability of coronary angiography had no discernible association with in-hospital mortality rates (odds ratio for mortality among patients admitted to hospitals with on-site facilities vs. patients admitted to hospitals without such facilities, 0.88; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.09). Conclusions: In this community-wide study, the availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities was associated with a higher likelihood that a patient would undergo coronary angiography. However, admission to hospitals with these facilities did not appear to be associated with lower short-term mortality. (N Engl J Med 1993;329:546-51.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]