Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
J Pediatr. 2019 Apr;207:169-175.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.11.046. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
To compare health care use and spending in children using vs not using respiratory medical equipment and supplies (RMES).
Cohort study of 20 352 children age 1-18 years continuously enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 from 12 states in the Truven Medicaid MarketScan Database; 7060 children using RMES were propensity score matched with 13 292 without RMES. Home RMES use was identified with Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System and International Classification of Diseases codes. RMES use was regressed on annual per-member-per-year Medicaid payments, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, including underlying respiratory and other complex chronic conditions.
Of children requiring RMES, 47% used oxygen, 28% suction, 22% noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, 17% tracheostomy, 8% ventilator, 5% mechanical in-exsufflator, and 4% high-frequency chest wall oscillator. Most children (93%) using RMES had a chronic condition; 26% had ≥6. The median per-member-per-year payments in matched children with vs without RMES were $24 359 vs $13 949 (P < .001). In adjusted analyses, payment increased significantly (P < .001 for all) with mechanical in-exsufflator (+$2657), tracheostomy (+$6447), suction (+$7341), chest wall oscillator (+$8925), and ventilator (+$20 530). Those increased payments were greater than the increase associated with a coded respiratory chronic condition (+$2709). Hospital and home health care were responsible for the greatest differences in payment (+$3799 and +$3320, respectively) between children with and without RMES.
The use of RMES is associated with high health care spending, especially with hospital and home health care. Population health initiatives in children may benefit from consideration of RMES in comprehensive risk assessment for health care spending.
比较使用和不使用呼吸医疗设备和用品(RMES)的儿童的医疗保健使用情况和支出。
2013 年,对 12 个州的特鲁文医疗补助市场扫描数据库中连续入组的 20352 名 1-18 岁的医疗补助儿童进行了队列研究;对 7060 名使用 RMES 的儿童与 13292 名未使用 RMES 的儿童进行了倾向评分匹配。使用医疗保健通用程序编码系统和国际疾病分类代码确定家庭 RMES 使用情况。根据人口统计学和临床特征,包括潜在的呼吸和其他复杂的慢性疾病,对 RMES 使用情况进行回归分析,以调整年度每位成员每年的医疗补助支付情况。
需要 RMES 的儿童中,47%使用氧气,28%使用吸痰,22%使用无创正压通气,17%使用气管切开术,8%使用呼吸机,5%使用机械吹入式体外除气器,4%使用高频胸壁振荡器。大多数使用 RMES 的儿童(93%)患有慢性疾病;26%的儿童患有≥6 种慢性疾病。在匹配的使用 RMES 和不使用 RMES 的儿童中,每位成员每年的中位数医疗补助支付分别为 24359 美元和 13949 美元(P < 0.001)。在调整后的分析中,所有机械吹入式体外除气器(+2657 美元)、气管切开术(+6447 美元)、吸痰(+7341 美元)、高频胸壁振荡器(+8925 美元)和呼吸机(+20530 美元)的支付均显著增加(所有 P < 0.001)。这些增加的支付超过了与编码的呼吸慢性疾病相关的增加(+2709 美元)。医院和家庭保健护理是造成使用 RMES 和不使用 RMES 的儿童之间支付差异最大的原因(分别为+3799 美元和+3320 美元)。
RMES 的使用与高额医疗保健支出相关,尤其是与医院和家庭保健护理相关。在儿童人群健康计划中,考虑将 RMES 纳入全面的医疗保健支出风险评估中,可能会受益。