Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between payment source and quality of care and outcomes in heart failure (HF).HF is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of studies assessing the association of payment source with HF quality of care and outcomes.A total of 99,508 HF admissions from 244 sites between January 2005 and September 2009 were analyzed. Patients were grouped on the basis of payer status (private/health maintenance organization, no insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid) with private/health maintenance organization as the reference group.The no-insurance group was less likely to receive evidence-based beta-blockers (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.86), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.70), or anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.87). Similarly, the Medicaid group was less likely to receive evidence-based beta-blockers (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.95) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.96). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers were prescribed less frequently in the Medicare group (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.98). The Medicare, Medicaid, and no-insurance groups had longer hospital stays. Higher adjusted rates of in-hospital mortality were seen in patients with Medicaid (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.41) and in patients with reduced systolic function with no insurance.Decreased quality of care and outcomes for patients with HF were observed in the no-insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare groups compared with the private/health maintenance organization group.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.034

View details for Web of Science ID 000295213900011

View details for PubMedID 21939830