Pediatric Patient Insurance Status and Regionalization of Admissions.

BACKGROUND

Pediatric hospital care is becoming increasingly regionalized, and previous data have suggested that insurance may be associated with transfer. The aims of the study are to describe regionalization of pediatric care and density of the interhospital transfer network and to determine whether these varied by insurance status.

METHODS

Using the New York State ED Database and State Inpatient Database from 2016, we identified all pediatric patients and calculated regionalization indices (RI) and network density, overall and stratified by insurance. Regionalization indices are based on the likelihood of a patient completing care at the initial hospital. Network density is the proportion of actual transfers compared with the number of potential hospital transfer connections. Both were calculated using the standard State ED Database/State Inpatient Database transfer definition and in a sensitivity analysis, excluding the disposition code requirement.

RESULTS

We identified 1,595,566 pediatric visits (emergency department [ED] or inpatient) in New York in 2016; 7548 (0.5%) were transferred and 7374 transferred visits had eligible insurance status (Medicaid, private, uninsured). Of the transfers, 24% were from ED to ED with discharge, 28% from ED to ED with admission, 31% from ED to inpatient, 16% from inpatient to inpatient, and 1.2% from inpatient to ED. The overall RI was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.20-0.31). The overall weighted RI was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.12) and was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.13) for Medicaid-insured patients, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.11) for privately insured patients, and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.11) for patients without insurance. The overall network density was 0.018 (95% CI, 0.017-0.020). Network density was higher, and transfer rates were lower, for patients with Medicaid insurance as compared with private insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significant regionalization of pediatric emergency care. Although there was not material variation by insurance in regionalization, there was variation in network density and transfer rates. Additional work is needed to understand factors affecting transfer decisions and how these patterns might vary by state.