Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization

Economic and cost considerations of delivering and using mobile X-ray services in residential aged care facilities: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the economic and cost considerations of mobile X-ray services (MXS) in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), according to stakeholders (involved in residents' healthcare), residents living in RACFs and informal carers (ICs) of residents.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 residents and 27 ICs recruited from six RACFs across metropolitan Adelaide (South Australia, Australia), and 22 stakeholders, on their perspectives of using MXS in RACFs. Data relating to economic and cost considerations were extracted and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Residents' mean age was 85 years, 60% were women and 40% had experienced an MXS in the last 12 months. Most ICs were daughters (70%) and wives (11%) and 30% had a family member who had experienced an MXS in the last 12 months. Stakeholders included RACF staff, GPs, a hospital avoidance program clinician, paramedics, emergency department clinicians, MXS radiographers and manager, and a radiologist. Four themes were presented: (1) business considerations, where private providers found it necessary to charge residents a co-payment to deliver MXS; (2) cost and payment process as a potential barrier to using MXS, with varied willingness and ability to pay for an MXS co-payment, and equity concerns; (3) overcoming cost and payment barriers, with staff and consumers sometimes using strategies to overcome cost barriers; and (4) perceived cost benefits of MXS to the healthcare system, residents and ICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile X-ray services providers charge residents an upfront co-payment for business viability, which can be a barrier to some residents wishing to access MXS.

Super-Utilization of the Emergency Department in a Universally Insured Population

INTRODUCTION

Super-utilizers (patients with 4 or more emergency department [ED] visits a year) account for 10% to 26% of all ED visits and are responsible for a growing proportion of healthcare expenditures. Patients recognize the ED as a reliable provider of acute care, as well as a timely resource for diagnosis and treatment. The value of ED care is indisputable in critical and emergent conditions, but in the case of non-urgent conditions, ED utilization may represent an inefficiency in the healthcare system. We sought to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with ED super-utilization in a universally insured population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using TRICARE claims data from the Military Health System Data Repository (2011-2015). We reviewed the claims data of all adult patients (aged 18-64 years) who had at least one encounter at the ED for any cause. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent factors associated with ED super-utilization.

RESULTS

Factors associated with increased odds of ED super-utilization included Charlson Score ≥2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.90-2.06), being eligible for Medicare (aOR 1.95, 95% CI: 1.90-2.01), and female sex (aOR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.33-1.37). Active duty service members (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.68-0.72) and beneficiaries with higher sponsor-rank (Officers: aOR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.55-0.57; Senior enlisted: aOR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.81-0.83) had lower odds of ED super-utilization. The most common primary diagnoses for ED visits among super-utilizers were abdominal pain, headache and migraine, chest pain, urinary tract infection, nausea and vomiting, and low back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of ED super-utilization appears to increase with age and diminished health status. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics of ED super-utilization identified in this study can be used to formulate healthcare policies addressing gaps in primary care in diagnoses associated with ED super-utilization and develop interventions to address modifiable risk factors of ED utilization.

Ethical issues in access to and delivery of emergency department care in an era of changing reimbursement and novel payment models

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) and the emergency physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who provide emergency care in them, are a critical component of the United States (US) health care system in the 21st century. Although access to emergency care has become a de facto right in the United States, funding for emergency care is fragmented and complex, which causes confusion and conflict about who should bear the cost of care. This article examines the tension between universal access to emergency care in the United States and the fragmentary, tenuous, and contentious financial arrangements that make it possible, viewing the issue in context of the historical development, legal and moral foundations, current situation, and future challenges of ED care in the United States. It begins with a review of the origins and evolution of emergency care and of hospital EDs in the United States. It then examines arguments for a right to emergency medical care and for shared obligations of patients to seek and of professionals and society to provide that care. Finally, it reviews current strategies and future prospects for protecting access to emergency care for patients who require it.

Emergency Department Out-of-Pocket Expenditures by Insurance, 1999 to 2016

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Per visit, emergency department (ED) expenditures have increased more for private insurance than Medicare and Medicaid during the past 20 years, but it is unknown whether ED out-of-pocket expenditures show a similar pattern of increase. We compare increases in per-visit ED out-of-pocket expenditures over time for visits that did not result in hospitalization or observation admissions for private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.

METHODS

This repeated cross-sectional analysis of out-of-pocket expenditures used data from the 1999 to 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized US civilian population. We used 2-part models-logistic regression followed by a generalized linear model with a γ distribution and a log link function-to compare per-visit out-of-pocket expenditures over time among different payers. Models contained insurance type, year, an interaction between year and insurance type, region of country, sex, and 5 visit-level variables (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography scans, ultrasonography, surgical procedures, radiographs, and ECGs).

RESULTS

In our sample of 107,519 ED visits, mean annual per-visit out-of-pocket expenditures increased $7.31 a year (95% confidence interval $6.22 to $8.41) for private insurance and did not increase for Medicare or Medicaid. Most private insurance and Medicare visits had out-of-pocket expenditures less than $100 and nearly all Medicaid visits had no out-of-pocket expenditures. There was no strong evidence suggesting that out-of-pocket expenditures at different total expenditure amounts increased appreciably for private insurance.

CONCLUSION

Per-visit out-of-pocket expenditure increases for private insurance ED visits were predominantly related to overall increases in per-visit total expenditure.