Laura G. Burke

Emergency department utilization after the implementation of Massachusetts health reform

STUDY OBJECTIVE Health care reform in Massachusetts improved access to health insurance, but the extent to which reform affected utilization of the emergency department (ED) for conditions potentially amenable to primary care is unclear. Our objective is to determine the relationship between health reform and ED use for low-severity conditions. METHODS We studied ED visits, using a convenience sample of 11 Massachusetts hospitals for identical 9-month periods before and after health care reform legislation was implemented in 2006. Individuals most affected by the health reform law (the uninsured and low-income populations covered by the publicly subsidized insurance products) were compared with individuals unlikely to be affected by the legislation (those with Medicare or private insurance). Our main outcome measure was the rate of overall and low-severity ED visits for the study population and the comparison population during the period before and after health reform implementation. RESULTS Total visits increased from 424,878 in 2006 to 442,102 in 2008. Low-severity visits among publicly subsidized or uninsured patients decreased from 43.8% to 41.2% of total visits for that group (difference=2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25% to 2.85%), whereas low-severity visits for privately insured and Medicare patients decreased from 35.7% to 34.9% of total visits for that group (difference=0.8%; 95% CI 0.62% to 0.98%), for a difference in differences of 1.8% (95% CI 1.7% to 1.9%). CONCLUSION Although overall ED volume continues to increase, Massachusetts health reform was associated with a small but statistically significant decrease in the rate of low-severity visits for those populations most affected by health reform compared with a comparison population of individuals less likely to be affected by the reform. Our findings suggest that access to health insurance is only one of a multitude of factors affecting utilization of the ED.

The Effect of an Ambulance Diversion Ban on Emergency Department Length of Stay and Ambulance Turnaround Time

STUDY OBJECTIVE Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to ban ambulance diversion in 2009. It was feared that the diversion ban would lead to increased emergency department (ED) crowding and ambulance turnaround time. We seek to characterize the effect of a statewide ambulance diversion ban on ED length of stay and ambulance turnaround time at Boston-area EDs. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, pre-post observational analysis of 9 Boston-area hospital EDs before and after the ban. We used ED length of stay as a proxy for ED crowding. We compared hospitals individually and in aggregate to determine any changes in ED length of stay for admitted and discharged patients, ED volume, and turnaround time. RESULTS No ED experienced an increase in ED length of stay for admitted or discharged patients or ambulance turnaround time despite an increase in volume for several EDs. There was an overall 3.6% increase in ED volume in our sample, a 10.4-minute decrease in length of stay for admitted patients, and a 2.2-minute decrease in turnaround time. When we compared high- and low-diverting EDs separately, neither saw an increase in length of stay, and both saw a decrease in turnaround time. CONCLUSION After the first statewide ambulance diversion ban, there was no increase in ED length of stay or ambulance turnaround time at 9 Boston-area EDs. Several hospitals actually experienced improvements in these outcome measures. Our results suggest that the ban did not worsen ED crowding or ambulance availability at Boston-area hospitals.

Association Between Teaching Status and Mortality in US Hospitals

Importance Few studies have analyzed contemporary data on outcomes at US teaching hospitals vs nonteaching hospitals. Objective To examine risk-adjusted outcomes for patients admitted to teaching vs nonteaching hospitals across a broad range of medical and surgical conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants Use of national Medicare data to compare mortality rates in US teaching and nonteaching hospitals for all hospitalizations and for common medical and surgical conditions among Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older. Exposures Hospital teaching status: major teaching hospitals (members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals), minor teaching hospitals (other hospitals with medical school affiliation), and nonteaching hospitals (remaining hospitals). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was 30-day mortality rate for all hospitalizations and for 15 common medical and 6 surgical conditions. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality stratified by hospital size and 7-day mortality and 90-day mortality for all hospitalizations as well as for individual medical and surgical conditions. Results The sample consisted of 21 451 824 total hospitalizations at 4483 hospitals, of which 250 (5.6%) were major teaching, 894 (19.9%) were minor teaching, and 3339 (74.3%) were nonteaching hospitals. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was 8.1% at major teaching hospitals, 9.2% at minor teaching hospitals, and 9.6% at nonteaching hospitals, with a 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.7%; P < .001) mortality difference between major teaching hospitals and nonteaching hospitals. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the same pattern persisted (8.3% mortality at major teaching vs 9.2% at minor teaching and 9.5% at nonteaching), but the difference in mortality between major and nonteaching hospitals was smaller (1.2% [95% CI, 1.0%-1.4%]; P < .001). After stratifying by hospital size, 187 large (≥400 beds) major teaching hospitals had lower adjusted overall 30-day mortality relative to 76 large nonteaching hospitals (8.1% vs 9.4%; 1.2% difference [95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%]; P < .001). This same pattern of lower overall 30-day mortality at teaching hospitals was observed for medium-sized (100-399 beds) hospitals (8.6% vs 9.3% and 9.4%; 0.8% difference between 61 major and 1207 nonteaching hospitals [95% CI, 0.4%-1.3%]; P = .003). Among small (⩽99 beds) hospitals, 187 minor teaching hospitals had lower overall 30-day mortality relative to 2056 nonteaching hospitals (9.5% vs 9.9%; 0.4% difference [95% CI, 0.1%-0.7%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance Among hospitalizations for US Medicare beneficiaries, major teaching hospital status was associated with lower mortality rates for common conditions compared with nonteaching hospitals. Further study is needed to understand the reasons for these differences.

Applying the Boston Syncope Criteria to Near Syncope

BACKGROUND We recently demonstrated that near-syncope patients are as likely as syncope patients to experience adverse outcomes. The Boston Syncope Criteria (BSC) identify patients with syncope unlikely to have adverse outcomes and reduce hospitalizations. It is unclear whether these guidelines could reduce hospitalization in near syncope as well. OBJECTIVE To determine if BSC accurately predict which near-syncope patients require hospitalization. METHODS A prospective observational study enrolled from August 2007 to October 2008 consecutive emergency department (ED) patients (aged > 18 years) with near syncope. BSC were first employed assuming that any patient with risk factors for adverse outcomes should be admitted, and then utilized using a modified rule: if the etiology of near syncope is dehydration or vasovagal, and ED work-up is normal, patients may be discharged even with risk factors. Outcomes were identified by chart review and 30-day follow-up calls. RESULTS Of 244 patients with near syncope, 111 were admitted, with 49 adverse outcomes. No adverse outcomes occurred among discharged patients. If BSC had been followed strictly, another 41 patients with risk factors would have been admitted and 34 discharged, a 3% increase in admission rate. However, using the modified criteria, only 68 patients would have required admission, a 38% reduction in admission, with no missed adverse outcomes on follow-up. CONCLUSION Although near-syncope patients may have risk factors for adverse outcomes similar to those with syncope, if the etiology of near syncope is dehydration or vasovagal, and ED work-up is normal, these patients may be discharged even with risk factors.

Analysis of Emergency Department Length of Stay for Mental Health Patients at Ten Massachusetts Emergency Departments

Study objective Prolonged boarding times in the emergency department (ED) disproportionately affect mental health patients, resulting in patient and provider dissatisfaction and increased patient morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to quantify the burden of mental health boarding and to elucidate the effect of insurance together with demographic, social, and comorbid factors on length of stay. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional observational study of 871 consecutive patients requiring an ED mental health evaluation at one of 10 unaffiliated Massachusetts hospitals. Demographics; insurance; length of stay; medical, psychiatric, and social history; and disposition data were collected. We evaluated the effect of these characteristics on boarding time. Results ED median length of stay varied greatly by disposition, driven primarily by ED boarding time. Admitted and transferred patients had longer delays than discharged patients (5.63, 9.32, and 1.23 hours, respectively). Medical clearance time (1.40 hours) composed only 10.5% of total ED length of stay and varied little by insurance. In our multivariate analyses, patients with Medicaid and the uninsured had significantly longer total lengths of stay and were more than twice as likely to remain in the ED for 24 hours or greater compared with privately insured patients. Conclusion Mental health patients in Massachusetts have lengthy ED visits, particularly those requiring inpatient admission. Boarding time accounts for the majority of total ED length of stay and varies by insurance, even when other factors known to affect ED length of stay are controlled. Efforts to improve timeliness of care for mental health emergencies should focus on reducing ED boarding and eliminating disparities in care by insurance status.

Ending Ambulance Diversion in Massachusetts

Prohibition of ambulance diversion in Massachusetts led hospitals to make operational changes to reduce emergency room crowding. Virtual Mentor is a monthly bioethics journal published by the American Medical Association.

Are trends in billing for high-intensity emergency care explained by changes in services provided in the emergency department? An observational study among US Medicare beneficiaries

Objective There has been concern that an increase in billing for high-intensity emergency care is due to changes in coding practices facilitated by electronic health records. We sought to characterise the trends in billing for high-intensity emergency care among Medicare beneficiaries and to examine the degree to which trends in high-intensity billing are explained by changes in patient characteristics and services provided in the emergency department (ED). Design, setting and participants Observational study using traditional Medicare claims to identify ED visits at non-federal acute care hospitals for elderly beneficiaries in 2006, 2009 and 2012. Outcomes measures Billing intensity was defined by emergency physician evaluation and management (E&M) codes. We tested for overall trends in high-intensity billing (E&M codes 99285, 99291 and 99292) and in services provided over time using linear regression models, adjusting for patient characteristics. Additionally, we tested for time trends in rates of admission to the hospital and to the intensive care unit (ICU). Next, we classified outpatient visits into 39 diagnosis categories and analysed the change in proportion of high-intensity visits versus the change in number of services. Finally, we quantified the extent to which trends in high-intensity billing are explained by changes in patient demographics and services provided in the ED using multivariable modelling. Results High-intensity visits grew from 45.8% of 671 103 visits in 2006 to 57.8% of 629 010 visits in 2012 (2.0% absolute increase per year; 95% CI 1.97% to 2.03%) as did the mean number of services provided for admitted (1.28 to 1.41; +0.02 increase in procedures per year; 95% CI 0.018 to 0.021) and discharged ED patients (7.1 to 8.6; +0.25 increase in services per year; 95% CI 0.245 to 0.255). There was a reduction in hospital admission rate from 40.1% to 35.9% (−0.68% per year; 95% CI −0.71% to −0.65%; P<0.001), while the ICU rate of admission rose from 11.7% to 12.3% (+0.11% per year; 95% CI 0.09% to 0.12%; P<0.001). When we stratified by diagnosis category, there was a moderate correlation between change in visits billed as high intensity and the change in mean number of services provided per visit (r=0.38; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.63). Trends in patient characteristics and services provided accounted moderately for the trend in practice intensity for outpatient visits (pseudo R2 of 0.47) but very little for inpatient visits (0.051) and visits overall (0.148). Conclusions Increases in services provided in the ED moderately account for the trends in billing for high-intensity emergency care for outpatient visits.

Less is not always more: embracing (appropriate) medical intensity

As healthcare costs continue to rise globally, policy makers and researchers have focused on inefficiencies in healthcare delivery. In the USA, the combination of high costs and disappointing outcomes associated with a fragmented delivery system has generated the idea that substantial reductions in spending are possible without sacrificing patient care. Indeed, we know that high spending often fails to produce optimal outcomes and therefore, reductions in spending should be achievable with no detrimental effects on quality. The evidence that less can sometimes be more is all around us. Front-line providers know all too well the human and financial costs of aggressive treatment of terminally ill patients who might otherwise prefer a palliative approach. Redundant testing due to inadequate care coordination and lack of information sharing is another example. Preventable adverse events exemplify how poor-quality care can drive up costs and harm patients at the same time. From these instances, a new mantra has emerged among many health policy leaders: less is better. Intensity is bad. What is clinical intensity? It is often described as the tendency to do more: perform more procedures, admit more patients, consult more specialists and prescribe more medications.1 Why does level of intensity appear to vary widely across institutions? Some have suggested that variation in clinical intensity is due to differences in the underlying patient population, although others have argued that patient factors matter very little. Detailed work by researchers at Dartmouth has suggested that both medical intensity and its variation among providers are fundamentally inefficient …

Proportion of patients with cancer among high-cost Medicare beneficiaries: Who they are and what drives their spending

BACKGROUND A small proportion of patients account for the majority of health care spending. Of this group, little is known about what proportion have a cancer diagnosis and how their spending pattern compares to those without cancer. METHODS Using national Medicare data of enrollees 65 or older, we identified patients in the top decile of spending in 2014 and designated them as high-cost. We used ICD-9 codes to identify patients with a cancer diagnosis and examined cancer prevalence among both high-cost and non-high-cost patients. We examined patterns of spending for high-cost patients with and without cancer. RESULTS While 14.8% of all Medicare beneficiaries have a cancer diagnosis, we found that the prevalence of a cancer diagnosis was much higher among high-cost patients (32.5% versus 12.9% of non-high-cost patients). Thus, having a cancer diagnosis was associated with a 3.1 times greater odds of being high-cost, even after accounting for age (odds ratio 3.09, 95% CI 3.07-3.11; P < 0.001). High-cost patients with cancer had higher total annual spending than high-cost patients without cancer (

13EMF Is Hospital Performance on Publicly Reported Quality Measures Associated With Patient Outcomes

66,685 vs.