Search

From September 2019 to August 2020, the author served as a senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers, a government agency charged with providing economic analysis and advice to the President of the United States and senior government officials. Working with the Council yielded many useful lessons on how anesthesiologists can influence healthcare policy. First, because the President has wide latitude over many areas of health policy that directly impact patient care and anesthesiologists' working environment, anesthesiologists should focus their efforts on influencing policymakers within the executive branch of government in addition to influencing lawmakers. Second, policymakers are busy and typically do not have a technical background, so anesthesiologists must learn how to communicate with them succinctly and at an appropriate level. Finally, because policymakers often need analysis quickly, anesthesiologists must meet these needs even if the underlying analysis is rougher and less precise that what would normally be needed for peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: For decades, the US public and private sectors have committed substantial resources towards cancer research, but the societal payoff has not been well-understood. We quantify the value of recent gains in cancer survival, and analyze the distribution of value among various stakeholders. Between 1988 and 2000, life expectancy for cancer patients increased by roughly four years, and the average willingness-to-pay for these survival gains was roughly $322,000. Improvements in cancer survival during this period created 23 million additional life-years and roughly $1.9 trillion of additional social value, implying that the average life-year was worth approximately $82,000 to its recipient. Health care providers and pharmaceutical companies appropriated 5–19% of this total, with the rest accruing to patients. The share of value flowing to patients has been rising over time. In terms of economic rates of return, R&D investments against cancer have been a success, particularly from the patient''s point of view. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Whether a particular surgeon's opioid prescribing behavior is associated with prolonged postoperative opioid use is unknown. This study tested the hypothesis that the patients of surgeons with a higher propensity to prescribe opioids are more likely to utilize opioids long-term postoperatively.Methods: The study identified 612,378 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. "High-intensity" surgeons were defined as those whose patients were, on average, in the upper quartile of opioid utilization in the immediate perioperative period (preoperative day 7 to postoperative day 7). The study then estimated whether patients of high-intensity surgeons had higher opioid utilization in the midterm (postoperative days 8 to 90) and long-term (postoperative days 91 to 365), utilizing an instrumental variable approach to minimize confounding from unobservable factors.Results: In the final sample of 604,093 patients, the average age was 74 yr (SD 5), and there were 413,121 (68.4%) females. A total of 180,926 patients (30%) were treated by high-intensity surgeons. On average, patients receiving treatment from a high-intensity surgeon received 36.1 (SD 35.0) oral morphine equivalent (morphine milligram equivalents) per day during the immediate perioperative period compared to 17.3 morphine milligram equivalents (SD 23.1) per day for all other patients (+18.9 morphine milligram equivalents per day difference; 95% CI, 18.7 to 19.0; P < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, receiving treatment from a high-intensity surgeon was associated with higher opioid utilization in the midterm opioid postoperative period (+2.4 morphine milligram equivalents per day difference; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < 0.001 [11.4 morphine milligram equivalents per day vs. 9.0]) and lower opioid utilization in the long-term postoperative period (-1.0 morphine milligram equivalents per day difference; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.6; P < 0.001 [2.8 morphine milligram equivalents per day vs. 3.8]). While statistically significant, these differences are clinically small.Conclusions: Among Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, surgeon-level variation in opioid utilization in the immediate perioperative period was associated with statistically significant but clinically insignificant differences in opioid utilization in the medium- and long-term postoperative periods.Editor’s Perspective: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Operating room (OR) expenditures and waste generation are a priority, with several professional societies recommending the use of reprocessed or reusable equipment where feasible. The aim of this analysis was to compare single-use pulse oximetry sensor stickers ("single-use stickers") versus reusable pulse oximetry sensor clips ("reusable clips") in terms of annual cost savings and waste generation across all ORs nationally., Methods: This study did not involve patient data or research on human subjects. As such, it did not meet the requirements for institutional review board approval. An economic model was used to compare the relative costs and waste generation from using single-use stickers versus reusable clips. This model took into account: (1) the relative prices of single-use stickers and reusable clips, (2) the number of surgeries and ORs nationwide, (3) the workload burden of cleaning the reusable clips, and (4) the costs of capital for single-use stickers and reusable clips. In addition, we also estimated differences in waste production based on the raw weight plus unit packaging of single-use stickers and reusable clips that would be disposed of over the course of the year, without any recycling interventions. Estimated savings were rounded to the nearest $0.1 million., Results: The national net annual savings of transitioning from single-use stickers to reusable clips in all ORs ranged from $510.5 million (conservative state) to $519.3 million (favorable state). Variability in savings estimates is driven by scenario planning for replacement rate of reusable clips, workload burden of cleaning (ranging from an additional expense of $618k versus a cost savings of $309k), and cost of capital-interest gained on investment of capital that is freed up by the monetary savings of a transition to reusable clips contributes between $541k (low-interest rates of 2.85%) and $1.3 million (high-interest rates of 7.08%). The annual waste that could be diverted from landfill by transitioning to reusable clips was found to be between 587 tons (conservative state) up to 589 tons (favorable state). If institutions need to purchase new vendor monitors or cables to make the transition, that may increase the 1-time capital disbursement., Conclusions: Using reusable clips versus single-use stickers across all ORs nationally would result in appreciable annual cost savings and waste generation reduction impact. As both single-use stickers and reusable clips are equally accurate and reliable, this cost and waste savings could be instituted without a compromise in clinical care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Background: Regional anesthesia for total knee arthroplasty has been deemed high priority by national and international societies, and its use can serve as a measure of healthcare equity. The association between utilization of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain and (1) race and (2) hospital in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty was estimated. The hypothesis was that Black patients would be less likely than White patients to receive regional anesthesia, and that variability in regional anesthesia would more likely be attributable to the hospital where surgery occurred than race., Methods: This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims for patients aged 65 yr or older who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was administration of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain, defined as any peripheral (femoral, lumbar plexus, or other) or neuraxial (spinal or epidural) block. The primary exposure was self-reported race (Black, White, or Other). Clinical significance was defined as a relative difference of 10% in regional anesthesia administration., Results: Data from 733,406 cases across 2,507 hospitals were analyzed: 90.7% of patients were identified as White, 4.7% as Black, and 4.6% as Other. Median hospital-level prevalence of use of regional anesthesia was 51% (interquartile range, 18 to 79%). Black patients did not have a statistically different probability of receiving a regional anesthetic compared to White patients (adjusted estimates: Black, 53.3% [95% CI, 52.5 to 54.1%]; White, 52.7% [95% CI, 52.4 to 54.1%]; P = 0.132). Findings were robust to alternate specifications of the exposure and outcome. Analysis of variance revealed that 42.0% of the variation in block administration was attributable to hospital, compared to less than 0.01% to race, after adjusting for other patient-level confounders., Conclusions: Race was not associated with administration of regional anesthesia in Medicare patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Variation in the use of regional anesthesia was primarily associated with the hospital where surgery occurred., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a public health issue in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between naloxone coprescription mandates and postoperative outcomes., Background: Data on naloxone coprescription mandates show mixed evidence for fatal overdoses in the broader population. How these mandates have impacted surgical patients has not been fully explored., Methods: Healthcare claims data were used to identify all patients undergoing 1 of 50 common procedures between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2019, and categorized as high risk for opioid overdose. The primary outcomes were an emergency department visit or hospital admission within 30 postoperative days. To reduce confounding, the association between this outcome and the implementation of naloxone coprescription mandates was estimated using a difference-in-differences approach., Results: The study included 429,878 surgical patients with an average age of 54.8 years (SD=15.9 years) and with 257,728 females (60.0%). There was no significant association between naloxone prescribing mandates and the primary outcomes. After adjustment for potential confounders, the incidence of hospital admission was 3.26% after implementation of a naloxone coprescription mandate compared with 3.33% before (difference change: -0.08%, 95% CI: -0.44% to 0.29%, P =0.68). The incidence of an emergency department visit was 7.06% after implementation of a naloxone coprescription mandate compared with 7.73% before (difference: -0.67%, 95% CI: -1.39% to 0.05%, P =0.07). These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity and subgroup analyses., Conclusions: Naloxone coprescription mandates were not associated with a statistically or clinically significant change in emergency department visits or hospital admissions within 30 postoperative days., Competing Interests: E.C.S. reports financial relationships, unrelated to this work, with Lucid Lane LLC and Analysis Group Inc. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Insured patients who receive out-of-network care may receive a "balance bill" for the difference between the practitioner's charge and their insurer's contracted rate. In 2017, California banned balance billing for anesthesia care. This study examined the association between California's law and subsequent payments for anesthesia care. The authors hypothesized that, after the law's implementation, there would be no change in in-network payment amounts, and that out-of-network payment amounts and the portion of claims occurring out-of-network would decline., Methods: The study used average, quarterly, California county-level payment data (2013 to 2020) derived from a claims database of commercially insured patients. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the change was estimated in payment amounts for intraoperative or intrapartum anesthesia care, along with the portion of claims occurring out-of-network, after the law's implementation. The comparison group was office visit payments, expected to be unaffected by the law. The authors prespecified that they would refer to differences of 10% or greater as policy significant., Results: The sample consisted of 43,728 procedure code-county-quarter-network combinations aggregated from 4,599,936 claims. The law's implementation was associated with a significant 13.6% decline in payments for out-of-network anesthesia care (95% CI, -16.5 to -10.6%; P < 0.001), translating to an average $108 decrease across all procedures (95% CI, -$149 to -$64). There was a statistically significant 3.0% increase in payments for in-network anesthesia care (95% CI, 0.9 to 5.1%; P = 0.007), translating to an average $87 increase (95% CI, $64 to $110), which may be notable in some circumstances but did not meet the study threshold for identifying a change as policy significant. There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the portion of claims occurring out-of-network (10.0%, 95% CI, -4.1 to 24.2%; P = 0.155)., Conclusions: California's balance billing law was associated with significant declines in out-of-network anesthesia payments in the first 3 yr after implementation. There were mixed statistical and policy significant results for in-network payments and the proportion of out-of-network claims., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: The Affordable Care Act has been associated with increased Medicaid coverage for childbirth among low-income US women. We hypothesized that Medicaid expansion was associated with increased use of labor neuraxial analgesia., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of US women with singleton live births who underwent vaginal delivery or intrapartum cesarean delivery between 2009 and 2017. Data were sourced from births in 26 US states that used the 2003 Revised US Birth Certificate. Difference-in-difference linear probability models were used to compare changes in the prevalence of neuraxial labor analgesia in 15 expansion and 11 nonexpansion states before and after Medicaid expansion. Models were adjusted for potential maternal and obstetric confounders with standard errors clustered at the state level., Results: The study sample included 5,703,371 births from 15 expansion states and 5,582,689 births from 11 nonexpansion states. In the preexpansion period, the overall rate of neuraxial analgesia in expansion and nonexpansion states was 73.2% vs 76.3%. Compared with the preexpansion period, the rate of neuraxial analgesia increased in the postexpansion period by 1.7% in expansion states (95% CI, 1.6-1.8) and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.9-1.0) in nonexpansion states. The adjusted difference-in-difference estimate comparing expansion and nonexpansion states was 0.47% points (95% CI, -0.63 to 1.57; P = .39)., Conclusions: Medicaid expansion was not associated with an increase in the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia in expansion states compared to the change in nonexpansion states over the same time period. Increasing Medicaid eligibility alone may be insufficient to increase the rate of neuraxial labor analgesia., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

BACKGROUND: Opioid use after surgery is associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Although some studies show that surgical patients may later become persistent opioid users, data on the association between new persistent opioid use after surgery and health care utilization and costs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and costs after major inpatient or METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Research databases were used to identify opioid-naive patients with major inpatient or outpatient surgeries and at least 1 year of continuous enrollment before and after this index surgery. Cohorts were stratified by new persistent opioid utilization status, setting of surgery (inpatient, outpatient), and payer (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid). Patients were considered new persistent opioid users if they had at least 1 opioid claim 4-90 days after index surgery and at least 1 opioid claim 91-180 days after index surgery. Patients with opioid prescription claims between 1 year and 15 days before their index event were excluded. Health care utilization and costs (excluding index surgery) were measured in the 1-year period after surgery. Predicted costs and cost ratios were estimated using multivariable log-linked gamma-family generalized linear models. RESULTS: In the inpatient cohorts, 827,583 commercial, 186,154 Medicare, and 104,734 Medicaid patients were included in the study, and the incidence of new persistent opioid use in these cohorts was 4.1%, 5.6%, and 7.1%, respectively. In the outpatient cohorts, 1,542,565 commercial, 390,876 Medicare, and 94,878 Medicaid patients were selected, with 2.0%, 1.5%, and 6.4% new persistent opioid use, respectively. Across all 3 payers in both surgical settings, patients with new persistent opioid use had a higher comorbidity burden and more use of concomitant medications in the baseline period. In the 1-year period after index surgery, patients with new persistent opioid use had more inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, and ambulance/paramedic service use than patients without persistent use, regardless of payer and setting. Patients with new persistent opioid use had approximately 5 times more opioid prescriptions and also had more nonopioid pharmacy claims than those without persistent use across all cohorts. After covariate adjustment, predicted 1-year total health care costs were significantly higher for patients with new persistent opioid use compared with those without persistent use for all comparisons (commercial inpatient: $29,499 vs. $11,798; Medicare inpatient: $34,455 vs. $21,313; Medicaid inpatient: $14,622 vs. $6,678; commercial outpatient: $18,751 vs. $7,517; Medicare outpatient ($26,411 vs. $13,577; Medicaid outpatient: $12,381 vs. $6,784; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: New persistent opioid use after major surgery in opioid-naive patients is associated with increased health care utilization and costs in the year after surgery across all surgical settings and payers. DISCLOSURES : Funding for this study was provided by Heron Therapeutics, which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. England and Evans-Shields are employees of Heron Therapeutics. Kong, Lew, Zimmerman, and Henriques are employees of IBM Watson Health, which was compensated by Heron Therapeutics for conducting this research. Brummett is a paid consultant for Heron Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Alosa Health and provides expert testimony. He further reports receipt of research funding from MDHHS (Sub K Michigan Open), NIDA (Centralized Pain Opioid Non-Responsiveness R01 DA038261-05), NIH0DHHS-US-16 PAF 07628 (R01 NR017096-05), NIH-DHHS (P50 AR070600-05 CORT), NIH-DHHS-US (K23 DA038718-04), NIH-DHHS-US-16-PAF06270 (R01 HD088712-05), NIH-DHHS-US-17-PAF02680 (R01 DA042859-05), and UM Michigan Genomics Initiative and holds a patent for peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine. Sun reports funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K08DA042314) as well as consulting fees from the Mission Lisa Foundation that are unrelated to this work.

Importance: The association between preoperative benzodiazepine use and long-term postoperative outcomes is not well understood., Objective: To characterize the association between preoperative benzodiazepine use and postoperative opioid use and health care costs., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, retrospective analysis of private health insurance claims data on 946 561 opioid-naive patients (no opioid prescriptions filled in the year before surgery) throughout the US was conducted. Patients underwent 1 of 11 common surgical procedures between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016; data analysis was performed January 9, 2020., Exposures: Benzodiazepine use, defined as long term (≥10 prescriptions filled or ≥120 days supplied in the year before surgery) or intermittent (any use not meeting the criteria for long term)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was opioid use 91 to 365 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included opioid use 0 to 90 days after surgery and health care costs 0 to 30 days after surgery., Results: In this sample of 946 561 patients, the mean age was 59.8 years (range, 18-89 years); 615 065 were women (65.0%). Of these, 23 484 patients (2.5%) met the criteria for long-term preoperative benzodiazepine use and 47 669 patients (5.0%) met the criteria for intermittent use. After adjusting for confounders, long-term (odds ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.54-1.65; P < .001) and intermittent (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.44-1.51; P < .001) benzodiazepine use were associated with an increased probability of any opioid use during postoperative days 91 to 365. For patients who used opioids in postoperative days 91 to 365, long-term benzodiazepine use was associated with a 44% increase in opioid dose (additional 0.6 mean daily morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8 MMEs; P < .001), although intermittent benzodiazepine use was not significantly different (0.0 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.2 MMEs; P = .65). Preoperative benzodiazepine use was also associated with increased opioid use in postoperative days 0 to 90 for both long-term (32% increase, additional 1.9 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1 MMEs; P < .001) and intermittent (9% increase, additional 0.5 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, 0.4-0.6 MMEs; P < .001) users. Intermittent benzodiazepine use was associated with an increase in 30-day health care costs ($1155; 95% CI, $938-$1372; P < .001), while no significant difference was observed for long-term benzodiazepine use., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, among opioid-naive patients, preoperative benzodiazepine use may be associated with an increased risk of developing long-term opioid use and increased opioid dosages postoperatively, and also may be associated with increased health care costs.

Background: In addition to payments for services, anesthesia groups in the United States often receive revenue from direct hospital payments. Understanding the magnitude of these payments and their association with the hospitals' payer mixes has important policy implications., Methods: Using a dataset of financial reports from 240 nonacademic California hospitals between 2002 and 2014, the authors characterized the prevalence and magnitude of direct hospital payments to anesthesia groups, and analyzed the association between these payments and the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers (e.g., Medicaid)., Results: Of hospitals analyzed, 69% (124 of 180) made direct payments to an anesthesia group in 2014, compared to 52% (76 of 147) in 2002; the median payment increased from $242,351 (mean, $578,322; interquartile range, $72,753 to $523,861; all dollar values in 2018 U.S. dollars) to $765,128 (mean, $1,295,369; interquartile range, $267,006 to $1,503,163) during this time period. After adjusting for relevant covariates, hospitals where public insurers accounted for a larger fraction of anesthesia revenues were more likely to make direct payments to anesthesia groups (β = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.81; P = 0.013), so that a 10-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 4.5-percentage point increase in the probability of receiving any payment. Among hospitals making payments, our results (β = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 3.45; P = 0.003) suggest that a 1-percentage point increase in the fraction of anesthesia revenue derived from public payers would be associated with a 2% relative increase in the amount paid., Conclusions: Direct payments from hospitals are becoming a larger financial consideration for anesthesia groups in California serving nonacademic hospitals, and are larger for groups working at hospitals serving publicly insured patients.

What We Already Know About This Topic: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: In the United States, anesthesia care can be provided by an anesthesia care team consisting of nonphysician providers (nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants) working under the supervision of a physician anesthesiologist. Nurse anesthetists may practice nationwide, whereas anesthesiologist assistants are restricted to 16 states. To inform policies concerning the expanded use of anesthesiologist assistants, the authors examined whether the specific anesthesia care team composition (physician anesthesiologist plus nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist assistant) was associated with differences in perioperative outcomes., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of national claims data for 443,098 publicly insured elderly (ages 65 to 89 yr) patients who underwent inpatient surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The differences in inpatient mortality, spending, and length of stay between cases where an anesthesiologist supervised an anesthesiologist assistant compared to cases where an anesthesiologist supervised a nurse anesthetist were estimated. The approach used a quasirandomization technique known as instrumental variables to reduce confounding., Results: The adjusted mortality for care teams with anesthesiologist assistants was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) versus 1.7% for care teams with nurse anesthetists (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.7; difference -0.08; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.1; P = 0.47). Compared to care teams with nurse anesthetists, care teams with anesthesiologist assistants were associated with non-statistically significant decreases in length of stay (-0.009 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.1; P = 0.89) and medical spending (-$56; 95% CI, -334 to 223; P = 0.70)., Conclusions: The specific composition of the anesthesia care team was not associated with any significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or inpatient spending.

Background: Markets for physician services are becoming increasingly concentrated, with many areas being dominated by a few groups. Antitrust authorities are concerned that increasing concentration will lead to inappropriately high payments for physician services from private insurers. The authors examined the association between market concentration and private insurer payments for anesthesia services., Methods: The authors obtained data on average payments from private insurers for five commonly used anesthesia Current Procedure Terminology codes for physicians located in 229 counties in the United States between 2002 and 2010. The authors calculated a measure of market concentration (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI]) for anesthesiologists in each county using Medicare claims data. The authors then estimated the association between market concentration and private insurer payments using a difference-in-differences approach to minimize confounding., Results: Private insurer payments to anesthesiologists in more concentrated markets were not significantly different from payments in less concentrated markets. Compared with the 25% of counties with the least concentration (counties with an HHI in the 0th to 25th percentile), payments in counties in the 25th to 50th percentile of HHI were approximately 0.51% less (95% CI, -2.3 to 1.3%, P = 0.95), whereas payments in counties in the 50th to 75th percentile of HHI were approximately 2.8% less (95% CI, -6.7 to 1.4%, P = 0.41) and payments in counties in the 75th to 100th percentile were approximately 3.1% less (95% CI, -8.1 to 1.2%, P = 0.32)., Conclusion: Increasing market concentration of anesthesia groups is not associated with significantly greater payments from private insurers.

Recent mass shootings in the U.S. have reignited the important public health debate concerning measures to decrease the epidemic of gun violence. Editorialists and gun lobbyists have criticized the recent focus on gun violence, arguing that gun-related homicide rates have been stable in the last decade. While true, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also demonstrate that although gun-related homicide rates were stable between 2002 and 2011, rates of violent gunshot injuries increased. These seemingly paradoxical trends may reflect the declining lethality of gunshot injuries brought about by surgical advances in the care of the patient with penetrating trauma. Focusing on gun-related homicide rates as a summary statistic of gun violence, rather than total violent gunshot injuries, can therefore misrepresent the rising epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.

Background: Studies of whether inpatient mortality in US teaching hospitals rises in July as a result of organizational disruption and relative inexperience of new physicians (July effect) find small and mixed results, perhaps because study populations primarily include low-risk inpatients whose mortality outcomes are unlikely to exhibit a July effect., Methods and Results: Using the US Nationwide Inpatient sample, we estimated difference-in-difference models of mortality, percutaneous coronary intervention rates, and bleeding complication rates, for high- and low-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to 98 teaching-intensive and 1353 non-teaching-intensive hospitals during May and July 2002 to 2008. Among patients in the top quartile of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (high risk), adjusted mortality was lower in May than July in teaching-intensive hospitals (18.8% in May, 22.7% in July, P<0.01), but similar in non-teaching-intensive hospitals (22.5% in May, 22.8% in July, P=0.70). Among patients in the lowest three quartiles of predicted acute myocardial infarction mortality (low risk), adjusted mortality was similar in May and July in both teaching-intensive hospitals (2.1% in May, 1.9% in July, P=0.45) and non-teaching-intensive hospitals (2.7% in May, 2.8% in July, P=0.21). Differences in percutaneous coronary intervention and bleeding complication rates could not explain the observed July mortality effect among high risk patients., Conclusions: High-risk acute myocardial infarction patients experience similar mortality in teaching- and non-teaching-intensive hospitals in July, but lower mortality in teaching-intensive hospitals in May. Low-risk patients experience no such July effect in teaching-intensive hospitals.