Search

Research suggests that individuals with Medicaid or no insurance receive fewer evidence-based treatments and have worse outcomes than those with private insurance for a broad range of conditions. These differences may be due to patients' receiving care in hospitals of different quality.We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases 2009-2010 data to identify patients aged 18-64 years with private insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance who were hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, stroke, or gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Multinomial logit regressions estimated the probability of admissions to hospitals classified as high, medium, or low quality on the basis of risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality.Compared with patients who have private insurance, those with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely to be minorities and to reside in areas with low-socioeconomic status. The probability of admission to high-quality hospitals was similar for patients with Medicaid (23.3%) and private insurance (23.0%) but was significantly lower for patients without insurance (19.8%, P0.01) compared with the other 2 insurance groups. Accounting for demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics did not influence the results.Previously noted disparities in hospital quality of care for Medicaid recipients are not explained by differences in the quality of hospitals they use. Patients without insurance have lower use of high-quality hospitals, a finding that needs exploration with data after 2013 in light of the Affordable Care Act, which is designed to improve access to medical care for patients without insurance.

Background: Patient safety events that result from the happenstance of mistakes and errors should not occur systematically across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups. Objective: To determine whether racial and ethnic differences in patient safety events disappear when income (a proxy for socioeconomic status) is taken into account. Research Design: This study analyzes administrative data from community hospitals in 16 states with reliable race/ethnicity measures in the 2000 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), using the publicly available AHRQ patient safety indicators (PSIs). Results: Different indicators show different results for different racial/ethnic subgroups. Many events with higher rates for non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites) remain higher when income is taken into account, although such differences for Hispanics or Asian/Pacific Islanders (APIs) tend to disappear. Many events with lower rates for Hispanics and APIs remain lower than whites when income is taken into account, but for blacks, they disappear. Discussion: The higher rates for minorities that reflect the way health care is delivered raise troubling questions about potential racial/ethnic bias and discrimination in the US health care system, problems with cultural sensitivity and effective communication, and access to high-quality health care providers. Conclusions: The AHRQ PSIs are a broad screen for potential safety events that point to needed improvement in the quality of care for specific populations.

Beginning October 1, 1983, Medicare began reimbursing many hospitals on the basis of a set of fixed fees tied to Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs). Using 1979-1981 Maryland data for Medicare patients, this paper compares the DRG system with the Disease Staging patient classification system in terms of structure, explanation of resource consumption (length of stay) of hospital patients, and impact on reimbursement by type of hospital. The two systems are conceptually and empirically different in classifying patients. Further, Disease Staging and DRGs perform similarly in explaining length-of-stay variation among Maryland patients. However, the two systems generate substantially different reimbursements by type of hospital. Surprisingly, large hospitals (including urban, not-for-profit, teaching hospitals) fare better under a DRG-based reimbursement system than under Disease Staging, a severity-of-illness system that excludes procedures as a basis of classification. These results imply that reimbursement policy based on Disease Staging would create disincentives to perform surgery compared with the current DRGs.