Asplin Brent R, Rhodes Karin V, Levy Helen, Lurie Nicole, Crain A Lauren, Carlin Bradley P, Kellermann Arthur L
Department of Emergency Medicine, Regions Hospital and HealthPartners Research Foundation, St Paul, Minn 55101, USA.
JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1248-54. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.10.1248.
There is growing pressure to avoid hospitalizing emergency department patients who can be treated safely as outpatients, but this strategy depends on timely access to follow-up care.
To determine the association between reported insurance status and access to follow-up appointments for serious conditions that are commonly identified during an emergency department visit.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight research assistants called 499 randomly selected ambulatory clinics in 9 US cities (May 2002-February 2003) and identified themselves as new patients who had been seen in an emergency department and needed an urgent follow-up appointment (within 1 week) for 1 of 3 clinical vignettes (pneumonia, hypertension, or possible ectopic pregnancy). The same person called each clinic twice using the same clinical vignette but different insurance status.
Proportion of callers who were offered an appointment within a week.
Of 499 clinics contacted in the final sample, 430 completed the study protocol. Four hundred six (47.2%) of 860 total callers and 277 (64.4%) of 430 privately insured callers were offered appointments within a week. Callers who claimed to have private insurance were more likely to receive appointments than those who claimed to have Medicaid coverage (63.6% [147/231] vs 34.2% [79/231]; difference, 29.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 21.2-37.6; P<.001). Callers reporting private insurance coverage had higher appointment rates than callers who reported that they were uninsured but offered to pay 20 dollars and arrange payment of the balance (65.3% [130/199] vs 25.1% [50/199]; difference, 40.2; 95% confidence interval, 31.4-49.1; P<.001). There were no differences in appointment rates between callers who claimed to have private insurance coverage and those who reportedly were uninsured but willing to pay cash for the entire visit fee (66.3% [132/199] vs 62.8% [125/199]; difference, 3.5; 95% confidence interval -3.7 to 10.8; P = .31). The median charge was 100 dollars (range, 25 dollars-600 dollars). Seventy-two percent of clinics did not attempt to determine the severity of the caller's condition.
Reported insurance status is associated with access to timely follow-up ambulatory care for potentially serious conditions. Having private insurance and being willing to pay cash may not eliminate the difficulty in obtaining urgent follow-up appointments.
避免将可作为门诊患者安全治疗的急诊科患者收住院的压力越来越大,但这一策略依赖于及时获得后续护理。
确定报告的保险状况与在急诊科就诊期间常见的严重疾病的后续预约机会之间的关联。
设计、设置和参与者:8名研究助理致电美国9个城市的499家随机选择的门诊诊所(2002年5月至2003年2月),并表明自己是在急诊科就诊过且需要针对3个临床病例之一(肺炎、高血压或可能的异位妊娠)进行紧急后续预约(1周内)的新患者。同一人使用相同的临床病例但不同的保险状况给每家诊所打两次电话。
在一周内获得预约的来电者比例。
在最终样本中联系的499家诊所中,430家完成了研究方案。在总共860名来电者中,406名(47.2%)和430名私人保险来电者中的277名(64.4%)在一周内获得了预约。声称有私人保险的来电者比声称有医疗补助覆盖的来电者更有可能获得预约(63.6%[147/231]对34.2%[79/231];差异为29.4个百分点;95%置信区间为21.2 - 37.6;P <.001)。报告有私人保险覆盖的来电者的预约率高于报告未参保但愿意支付20美元并安排支付余额的来电者(65.3%[130/199]对25.1%[50/199];差异为40.2;95%置信区间为31.4 - 49.1;P <.001)。声称有私人保险覆盖的来电者与据报道未参保但愿意支付全部就诊费用现金的来电者之间的预约率没有差异(66.3%[132/199]对62.8%[125/199];差异为3.5;95%置信区间为 - 3.7至10.8;P = 0.31)。中位数收费为100美元(范围为25美元至600美元)。72%的诊所未试图确定来电者病情严重程度。
报告的保险状况与潜在严重疾病的及时后续门诊护理机会相关。拥有私人保险和愿意支付现金可能无法消除获得紧急后续预约的困难。