Variation in coronary revascularisation and mortality after myocardial infarction across three public health insurance schemes in Thailand: an observational analysis from nationwide claims data.

BMJ public health Pub Date : 2025-08-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjph-2024-001264
Woranan Witthayapipopsakul, Orawan Anupraiwan, Gumpanart Veerakul, Anne Mills, Ipek Gurol-Urganci, Jan van der Meulen
{"title":"Variation in coronary revascularisation and mortality after myocardial infarction across three public health insurance schemes in Thailand: an observational analysis from nationwide claims data.","authors":"Woranan Witthayapipopsakul, Orawan Anupraiwan, Gumpanart Veerakul, Anne Mills, Ipek Gurol-Urganci, Jan van der Meulen","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2024-001264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence on the impact of diverse healthcare insurance arrangements on healthcare variation is limited in low-income and middle-income countries. In Thailand, the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS), Social Health Insurance (SHI) and Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) have different provider choice and reimbursement arrangements and cover different populations. We explored to what extent use of revascularisation in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) varied by insurance scheme.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used claims data, including all admissions for patients with STEMI between 2015 and 2020. Outcomes were any type of revascularisation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and mortality. Regression models were used to estimate absolute differences (ADs) by scheme, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities and admission year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 98 142 patients, 75.7% were covered by UCS, 13.3% by CSMBS and 11.0% by SHI. Overall, 76.3% underwent revascularisation and 53.8% received PPCI. Mortality rates were 13.2% in-hospital and 20.7% at 180 days. Compared with UCS, use of revascularisation was slightly higher with CSMBS and slightly lower with SHI (AD: CSMBS 1.3% (95% CI -0.2 to 2.8), SHI -0.8% (-2.6 to 1.0), p=0.0264) and use of PPCI was slightly higher with CSMBS and SHI (AD: CSMBS 2.4% (-0.3 to 5.2), SHI 5.2% (3.1 to 7.2), p<0.0001)). CSMBS and SHI-insured patients had lower mortality compared with UCS (AD for in-hospital: CSMBS -1.3% (-2.1 to -0.5), SHI -0.9% (-1.8 to -0.1), p<0.0001; AD for 180-day mortality: CSMBS -4.5% (-5.3 to -3.6), SHI -1.9% (-3.0 to -0.8), p<0.0001). Effects of insurance scheme varied by hospital type for all outcomes (p for interaction<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three-quarters of patients with STEMI received coronary revascularisation, suggesting potential undertreatment. We identified relatively small differences in access to revascularisation by insurance scheme which are unlikely to explain the lower mortality with CSMBS and SHI. Claims data can be used to assess the impact of insurance on access to effective treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 2","pages":"e001264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12359411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2024-001264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence on the impact of diverse healthcare insurance arrangements on healthcare variation is limited in low-income and middle-income countries. In Thailand, the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS), Social Health Insurance (SHI) and Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) have different provider choice and reimbursement arrangements and cover different populations. We explored to what extent use of revascularisation in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) varied by insurance scheme.

Methods: We used claims data, including all admissions for patients with STEMI between 2015 and 2020. Outcomes were any type of revascularisation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and mortality. Regression models were used to estimate absolute differences (ADs) by scheme, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities and admission year.

Results: Of 98 142 patients, 75.7% were covered by UCS, 13.3% by CSMBS and 11.0% by SHI. Overall, 76.3% underwent revascularisation and 53.8% received PPCI. Mortality rates were 13.2% in-hospital and 20.7% at 180 days. Compared with UCS, use of revascularisation was slightly higher with CSMBS and slightly lower with SHI (AD: CSMBS 1.3% (95% CI -0.2 to 2.8), SHI -0.8% (-2.6 to 1.0), p=0.0264) and use of PPCI was slightly higher with CSMBS and SHI (AD: CSMBS 2.4% (-0.3 to 5.2), SHI 5.2% (3.1 to 7.2), p<0.0001)). CSMBS and SHI-insured patients had lower mortality compared with UCS (AD for in-hospital: CSMBS -1.3% (-2.1 to -0.5), SHI -0.9% (-1.8 to -0.1), p<0.0001; AD for 180-day mortality: CSMBS -4.5% (-5.3 to -3.6), SHI -1.9% (-3.0 to -0.8), p<0.0001). Effects of insurance scheme varied by hospital type for all outcomes (p for interaction<0.0001).

Conclusion: Three-quarters of patients with STEMI received coronary revascularisation, suggesting potential undertreatment. We identified relatively small differences in access to revascularisation by insurance scheme which are unlikely to explain the lower mortality with CSMBS and SHI. Claims data can be used to assess the impact of insurance on access to effective treatments.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在泰国的三个公共健康保险计划中,心肌梗死后冠状动脉血运重建和死亡率的变化:来自全国索赔数据的观察性分析。
背景:在低收入和中等收入国家,关于不同医疗保险安排对医疗保健差异影响的证据有限。在泰国,公务员医疗福利计划(CSMBS)、社会健康保险(SHI)和全民保险计划(UCS)有不同的提供者选择和报销安排,覆盖不同的人群。我们探讨了ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者血运重建的使用程度因保险方案而异。方法:我们使用索赔数据,包括2015年至2020年间所有STEMI患者入院。结果是任何类型的血运重建,原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)和死亡率。根据年龄、性别、合并症和入院年份调整后,采用回归模型估计绝对差异(ADs)。结果:98 142例患者中,UCS覆盖75.7%,CSMBS覆盖13.3%,SHI覆盖11.0%。总体而言,76.3%接受了血运重建术,53.8%接受了PPCI。住院死亡率为13.2%,180天死亡率为20.7%。与UCS相比,CSMBS的冠脉重建使用率略高,SHI的冠脉重建使用率略低(AD: CSMBS 1.3% (95% CI -0.2至2.8),SHI -0.8%(-2.6至1.0),p=0.0264), CSMBS和SHI的PPCI使用率略高(AD: CSMBS 2.4%(-0.3至5.2),SHI 5.2%(3.1至7.2),p结论:四分之三的STEMI患者接受了冠脉重建,提示潜在的治疗不足。我们发现保险方案在获得血运重建方面存在相对较小的差异,这不太可能解释CSMBS和SHI的较低死亡率。索赔数据可用于评估保险对获得有效治疗的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信