{"title":"Do For-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures?","authors":"Antonio J Trujillo PhD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Do for-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures compared with not-for-profit health plans?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cohort study.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>In unadjusted analyses, for-profit health plan beneficiaries had higher rates of all high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries; the difference was significant for 4 out of 12 procedures (see Table 1). Rates of usage remained higher in for-profit plans after adjustment for participants’ sociodemographic factors, county of residence, and health plan characteristics (see Table 1).<span><div><div><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Table 1</strong> Difference in rates of high-cost procedures between for-profit plans and not-for-profit plans.</td></tr><tr><td>Procedure</td><td>Difference per 10,000 beneficiaries (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Unadjusted</td><td>Adjusted for sociodemographic factors<sup>∗</sup></td><td>Adjusted for health plan characteristics<sup>†</sup>, sociodemographic</td><td>Adjusted for county of residence<sup>‡</sup>, sociodemographic factors, health plan characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Hysterectomy</td><td>2.6 (−0.3 to 5.5)</td><td>2.7 (−0.2 to 5.6)</td><td>2.2 (−1.0 to 5.4)</td><td>2.5 (0.6 to 4.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Prostatectomy</td><td>4.3 (−1.4 to 10.1)</td><td>3.8 (−1.9 to 9.6)</td><td>3.3 (−3.1 to 9.8)</td><td>6.3 (0.2 to 12.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Closed cholecystectomy</td><td>5.8 (−0.2 to 11.9)</td><td>6.1 (0.1 to 12.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.0 (0.4 to 13.6)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.7 (3.4 to 11.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Open cholecystectomy</td><td>0.8 (−1.6 to 3.1)</td><td>0.8 (−1.5 to 3.2)</td><td>0.6 (−2.1 to 3.3)</td><td>1.9 (−0.1 to 3.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Partial colectomy</td><td>4.0 (−1.0 to 9.0)</td><td>4.4 (−0.6 to 9.4)</td><td>6.0 (0.3 to 11.6)<sup>§</sup></td><td>8.4 (4.8 to 12.0)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Reduction of femur fracture</td><td>2.6 (−2.9 to 8.2)</td><td>6.0 (0.5 to 11.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>5.3 (−0.9 to 11.4)</td><td>6.4 (1.1 to 11.6)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total knee replacement</td><td>5.1 (−1.0 to 11.2)</td><td>5.1 (−0.9 to 11.2)</td><td>5.7 (−0.9 to 12.4)</td><td>8.3 (3.1 to 13.6)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Total hip replacement</td><td>2.4 (−5.1 to 10.0)</td><td>3.0 (−4.5 to 10.5)</td><td>2.3 (−6.2 to 10.9)</td><td>5.4 (0.8 to 9.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Cardiac catheterisation</td><td>31.6 (9.0 to 54.2)<sup>§</sup></td><td>31.0 (8.7 to 53.3)<sup>§</sup></td><td>15.2 (−9.2 to 39.5)</td><td>26.5 (14.1 to 38.9)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Coronary artery bypass grafting</td><td>10.3 (2.5 to 15.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>10.7 (3.1 to 18.3)<sup>§</sup></td><td>7.6 (−1.0 to 16.2)</td><td>6.3 (0 to 12.7)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty</td><td>8.5 (1.0 to 16.1)<sup>§</sup></td><td>9.0 (1.6 to 16.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>6.0 (−2.3 to 14.3)</td><td>2.6 (−2.8 to 8.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Carotid endarterectomy</td><td>5.4 (1.0 to 9.9)<sup>§</sup></td><td>6.0 (1.6 to 10.4)<sup>§</sup></td><td>2.3 (−2.5 to 7.1)</td><td>4.2 (1.1 to 7.3)<sup>§</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>∗</sup>Sociodemographic factors: sex, age, race or ethnic group, income, education, rural or urban residence, Medicaid eligibility. <sup>†</sup>Health plan characteristics: years in operation, number of beneficiaries, health plan model type (independent practice association, network, mixed, group or staff). <sup>‡</sup>Differences weighted according to county of residence of beneficiaries. <sup>§</sup><span><math><mtext>P<0.05</mtext></math></span>.</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span></p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>There is no evidence that for-profit heath plan beneficiaries are less likely to receive high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 3","pages":"Pages 116-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.03.021","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462941004000567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Question
Do for-profit health plans restrict access to high-cost procedures compared with not-for-profit health plans?
Study design
Cohort study.
Main results
In unadjusted analyses, for-profit health plan beneficiaries had higher rates of all high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries; the difference was significant for 4 out of 12 procedures (see Table 1). Rates of usage remained higher in for-profit plans after adjustment for participants’ sociodemographic factors, county of residence, and health plan characteristics (see Table 1).
Table 1 Difference in rates of high-cost procedures between for-profit plans and not-for-profit plans.
Procedure
Difference per 10,000 beneficiaries (95% CI)
Unadjusted
Adjusted for sociodemographic factors∗
Adjusted for health plan characteristics†, sociodemographic
Adjusted for county of residence‡, sociodemographic factors, health plan characteristics
Hysterectomy
2.6 (−0.3 to 5.5)
2.7 (−0.2 to 5.6)
2.2 (−1.0 to 5.4)
2.5 (0.6 to 4.3)§
Prostatectomy
4.3 (−1.4 to 10.1)
3.8 (−1.9 to 9.6)
3.3 (−3.1 to 9.8)
6.3 (0.2 to 12.3)§
Closed cholecystectomy
5.8 (−0.2 to 11.9)
6.1 (0.1 to 12.1)§
7.0 (0.4 to 13.6)§
7.7 (3.4 to 11.9)§
Open cholecystectomy
0.8 (−1.6 to 3.1)
0.8 (−1.5 to 3.2)
0.6 (−2.1 to 3.3)
1.9 (−0.1 to 3.8)
Partial colectomy
4.0 (−1.0 to 9.0)
4.4 (−0.6 to 9.4)
6.0 (0.3 to 11.6)§
8.4 (4.8 to 12.0)§
Reduction of femur fracture
2.6 (−2.9 to 8.2)
6.0 (0.5 to 11.4)§
5.3 (−0.9 to 11.4)
6.4 (1.1 to 11.6)§
Total knee replacement
5.1 (−1.0 to 11.2)
5.1 (−0.9 to 11.2)
5.7 (−0.9 to 12.4)
8.3 (3.1 to 13.6)§
Total hip replacement
2.4 (−5.1 to 10.0)
3.0 (−4.5 to 10.5)
2.3 (−6.2 to 10.9)
5.4 (0.8 to 9.9)§
Cardiac catheterisation
31.6 (9.0 to 54.2)§
31.0 (8.7 to 53.3)§
15.2 (−9.2 to 39.5)
26.5 (14.1 to 38.9)§
Coronary artery bypass grafting
10.3 (2.5 to 15.1)§
10.7 (3.1 to 18.3)§
7.6 (−1.0 to 16.2)
6.3 (0 to 12.7)§
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
8.5 (1.0 to 16.1)§
9.0 (1.6 to 16.4)§
6.0 (−2.3 to 14.3)
2.6 (−2.8 to 8.0)
Carotid endarterectomy
5.4 (1.0 to 9.9)§
6.0 (1.6 to 10.4)§
2.3 (−2.5 to 7.1)
4.2 (1.1 to 7.3)§
∗Sociodemographic factors: sex, age, race or ethnic group, income, education, rural or urban residence, Medicaid eligibility. †Health plan characteristics: years in operation, number of beneficiaries, health plan model type (independent practice association, network, mixed, group or staff). ‡Differences weighted according to county of residence of beneficiaries. §.
Authors’ conclusions
There is no evidence that for-profit heath plan beneficiaries are less likely to receive high-cost procedures than not-for-profit health plan beneficiaries.