Xirasagar Sudha, Lin Herng-Ching
University of South Carolina, Department of Health Services Policy and Management, Columbia, SC, USA.
Health Policy. 2006 Mar;76(1):26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.04.011. Epub 2005 Jun 1.
To test the hypotheses that (1) for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals are less likely than public hospitals to admit cases reimbursed by prospective payment favoring ambulatory over inpatient care; (2) admission odds of public, FP and NFP hospitals will converge under increasing hospital competition.
Retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study covering 29,699 cases of unilateral, femoral/inguinal hernia operation (major surgical procedure) and 60,626 cases of cataract surgery (local surgical procedure), from Taiwan's National Health Insurance database was used. Diagnosis-wise logistic regression analysis were done to examine associations between admission propensities of FP versus public and NFP hospitals (large teaching hospitals with > or = 250 beds versus district hospitals with < 250 beds) under high and low competition, adjusted for clinical complications, and patient as well as physician demographics.
Large public teaching hospitals are significantly more likely than FP district hospitals to admit hernia patients (ORs = 1.9 and 2.6, respectively, under high and low competition), and cataract surgery patients (ORs = 5.0 and 5.4, respectively, under high and low competition). The corresponding odds ratios for public district hospitals (relative to FP district hospitals) are 1.2 and 3.9 for hernia and 4.9 and 2.7 for cataract surgery. Odds ratios show convergence of admission odds across hospital ownership under high competition relative to low competition for hernia (OR range for different hospital types under high competition, 1.0-1.9; and under low competition, 1.0-3.9). Cataract cases show high divergence of admission odds between public and FP/NFP hospitals regardless of competition level (OR range for different hospital types under high competition, 0.3-5.0; and under low competition, 0.3-5.4).
Overall, our data support the study hypotheses. Differences in the relevance of inpatient care for hernia and cataract surgery may account for the lack of admission convergence of public hospitals and FPs under high competition among cataract surgery group.
检验以下假设:(1)营利性(FP)医院和非营利性(NFP)医院比公立医院更不可能收治按预期支付方式报销的病例,该支付方式更倾向门诊治疗而非住院治疗;(2)在医院竞争加剧的情况下,公立、FP和NFP医院的入院几率将趋于一致。
采用基于人群的回顾性横断面研究,数据来自台湾全民健康保险数据库,涵盖29699例单侧股/腹股沟疝手术(大手术)病例和60626例白内障手术(局部手术)病例。进行按诊断的逻辑回归分析,以检验在高竞争和低竞争情况下,调整临床并发症、患者及医生人口统计学因素后,FP医院与公立及NFP医院(床位≥250张的大型教学医院与床位<250张的地区医院)入院倾向之间的关联。
大型公立教学医院收治疝患者(高竞争和低竞争情况下的比值比分别为1.9和2.6)及白内障手术患者(高竞争和低竞争情况下的比值比分别为5.0和5.4)的可能性显著高于FP地区医院。公立地区医院(相对于FP地区医院)收治疝患者的相应比值比为1.2和3.9,收治白内障手术患者的比值比为4.9和2.7。对于疝,与低竞争相比,高竞争情况下不同医院类型的入院几率比值比显示出各医院所有制间入院几率的趋同(高竞争情况下不同医院类型的比值比范围为1.0 - 1.9;低竞争情况下为1.0 - 3.9)。无论竞争水平如何,白内障病例在公立与FP/NFP医院之间的入院几率差异很大(高竞争情况下不同医院类型的比值比范围为0.3 - 5.0;低竞争情况下为0.3 - 5.4)。
总体而言,我们的数据支持研究假设。疝和白内障手术住院治疗相关性的差异可能解释了在白内障手术组高竞争情况下公立医院和FP医院入院趋同的缺乏。