Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale · 2008
Impact of US state government regulation on patient access to elective surgical care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fric-Shamji Elana C, Shamji Mohammed F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Rising health care costs in the United States have led to government regulation of services via a Certificate of Need (CON) law in many states. Such regulation may decrease access to elective surgical procedures. This study describes the impact of CON laws on elective surgical care.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort trial used data from the Health Care Utilization Project, a publicly available, inpatient database. Rates of six elective procedures were compared between 21 CON states and 5 non-CON states (2004-2005). Further, facility type (non-profit versus for-profit), facility teaching status, and median charges were also compared as a function of CON status. Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t-tests (?=0.05).
RESULTS: CON laws did not affect procedure rates (P = 0.11-0.97), but lower charges were found for lumbar discectomy ($16,819 versus $13,493 p=0.04), acoustic neuroma resection ($60,993 versus $46,353, P < 0.001), and microvascular decompression (MVD) for trigeminal neuralgia ($37,741 versus $27,729, P < 0.001) in CON states. Various procedures exhibited a shift from for-profit to non-profit facilities including lumbar disectomy (20% versus 9%, P=0.01), acoustic neuroma resection (5.5% versus 0.2%, P=0.03), MVD (20% versus 3%, P=0.02), and rotator cuff repair (23% versus 10%, P=0.01). CON status had no effect on proportion of cases occurring at teaching facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: CON laws appear to maintain patient access to elective surgical care while successfully reducing hospital charges. The location of surgery may shift to non-profit centers suggesting preferential certificate distribution, though this only partly explains the decreased charges in states with CON regulation.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort trial used data from the Health Care Utilization Project, a publicly available, inpatient database. Rates of six elective procedures were compared between 21 CON states and 5 non-CON states (2004-2005). Further, facility type (non-profit versus for-profit), facility teaching status, and median charges were also compared as a function of CON status. Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t-tests (?=0.05).
RESULTS: CON laws did not affect procedure rates (P = 0.11-0.97), but lower charges were found for lumbar discectomy ($16,819 versus $13,493 p=0.04), acoustic neuroma resection ($60,993 versus $46,353, P < 0.001), and microvascular decompression (MVD) for trigeminal neuralgia ($37,741 versus $27,729, P < 0.001) in CON states. Various procedures exhibited a shift from for-profit to non-profit facilities including lumbar disectomy (20% versus 9%, P=0.01), acoustic neuroma resection (5.5% versus 0.2%, P=0.03), MVD (20% versus 3%, P=0.02), and rotator cuff repair (23% versus 10%, P=0.01). CON status had no effect on proportion of cases occurring at teaching facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: CON laws appear to maintain patient access to elective surgical care while successfully reducing hospital charges. The location of surgery may shift to non-profit centers suggesting preferential certificate distribution, though this only partly explains the decreased charges in states with CON regulation.