Hasegawa Kohei, Stoll Samantha J, Ahn Jason, Kysia Rashid F, Sullivan Ashley F, Camargo Carlos A
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
North Shore Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Salem, Massachusetts.
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan;17(1):22-7. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.11.28715. Epub 2016 Jan 12.
Previous studies have demonstrated an association of low socioeconomic status with frequent asthma exacerbations. However, there have been no recent multicenter efforts to examine the relationship of insurance status - a proxy for socioeconomic status - with asthma severity and management in adults. The objective is to investigate chronic and acute asthma management disparities by insurance status among adults requiring emergency department (ED) treatment in the United States.
We conducted a multicenter chart review study (48 EDs in 23 U.S. states) on ED patients, aged 18-54 years, with acute asthma between 2011 and 2012. Each site underwent training (lecture, practice charts, certification) before reviewing randomly selected charts. We categorized patients into three groups based on their primary health insurance: private, public, and no insurance. Outcome measures were chronic asthma severity (as measured by ≥2 ED visits in one-year period) and management prior to the index ED visit, acute asthma management in the ED, and prescription at ED discharge.
The analytic cohort comprised 1,928 ED patients with acute asthma. Among these, 33% had private insurance, 40% had public insurance, and 27% had no insurance. Compared to patients with private insurance, those with public insurance or no insurance were more likely to have ≥2 ED visits during the preceding year (35%, 49%, and 45%, respectively; p<0.001). Despite the higher chronic severity, those with no insurance were less likely to have guideline-recommended chronic asthma care - i.e., lower use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS [41%, 41%, and 29%; p<0.001]) and asthma specialist care (9%, 10%, and 4%; p<0.001). By contrast, there were no significant differences in acute asthma management in the ED - e.g., use of systemic corticosteroids (75%, 79%, and 78%; p=0.08) or initiation of ICS at ED discharge (12%, 12%, and 14%; p=0.57) - by insurance status.
In this multicenter observational study of ED patients with acute asthma, we found significant discrepancies in chronic asthma severity and management by insurance status. By contrast, there were no differences in acute asthma management among the insurance groups.
既往研究表明社会经济地位低下与哮喘频繁发作有关。然而,近期尚无多中心研究探讨保险状况(社会经济地位的一个替代指标)与成人哮喘严重程度及管理之间的关系。目的是调查美国因急诊就诊的成人中,按保险状况划分的慢性和急性哮喘管理差异。
我们对2011年至2012年间年龄在18 - 54岁、患有急性哮喘的急诊患者进行了一项多中心病历回顾研究(美国23个州的48个急诊科)。每个研究点在回顾随机抽取的病历之前都接受了培训(讲座、练习病历、考核)。我们根据患者的主要医疗保险将其分为三组:私人保险、公共保险和无保险。观察指标包括慢性哮喘严重程度(以一年内急诊就诊≥2次衡量)以及本次急诊就诊前的管理情况、急诊中的急性哮喘管理情况和急诊出院时的处方。
分析队列包括1928例患有急性哮喘的急诊患者。其中,33%有私人保险,40%有公共保险,27%无保险。与有私人保险的患者相比,有公共保险或无保险的患者在前一年更有可能急诊就诊≥2次(分别为35%、49%和45%;p<0.001)。尽管无保险患者的慢性严重程度更高,但他们接受指南推荐的慢性哮喘治疗的可能性较小,即吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)的使用较少(分别为41%、41%和29%;p<0.001)以及哮喘专科治疗较少(分别为9%、10%和4%;p<0.001)。相比之下,按保险状况划分,急诊中的急性哮喘管理无显著差异,例如全身糖皮质激素的使用(分别为75%、79%和78%;p = 0.08)或急诊出院时ICS的起始使用(分别为12%、12%和14%;p = 0.57)。
在这项针对患有急性哮喘的急诊患者的多中心观察性研究中,我们发现按保险状况划分,慢性哮喘严重程度和管理存在显著差异。相比之下,各保险组在急性哮喘管理方面没有差异。