Dataset Information

Inpatient Hospital Charge Variability of U.S. Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The range of hospital charges for similar diagnoses show tremendous variability across U.S. hospitals. This charge variability remains unexplained.

Objective

We aimed to describe hospital charge variability in the U.S. and examine its relationship to local health factors.

Design

This was a descriptive study of the 2011 Medicare Inpatient Charge data summarizing inpatient hospital charges billed to Medicare. This data was evaluated using 29 county-level measures of health status, health behavior, clinical access and quality, built environment, and socioeconomic status in a clustered, multivariate linear regression.

Participants

2871 U.S. hospitals registered with Medicare and with at least ten discharges for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) of six common inpatient conditions.

Main measure

Inpatient hospital charges were assessed.

Key results

No community health measures were associated with hospital charges. The one notable exception associated with higher charges was higher rates of uninsured status ($344.84 higher charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)). One variable was associated with lower hospital charges: the percentage of children living in poverty [$309.30 lower charges for every one-percentage point increase in prevalence (p < 0.001)].

Conclusions

Overall, hospital charges lacked an association with population health measures, and their variability remains largely unexplained. However, the association of higher charges with uninsured status raises concerns about hospitals' price-setting strategies, such as price discrimination and cost-shifting strategies that expose vulnerable populations to great financial risks.

SUBMITTER: Park JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4617932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the total numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists in acute care hospitals with intensivists and compare the characteristics of hospitals with and without intensivists.DesignRetrospective analysis of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (Fiscal Year 2015).SettingTwo-thousand eight-hundred fourteen acute care hospitals with ICU beds.PatientsNone.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf the 2,814 acute care hospitals studied, 1,469 (52%) had intensivists and 1,345 (48%) had no intensivists. There were 28,808 privileged and 19,996 full-time equivalent intensivists in the 1,469 hospitals with intensivists. In these hospitals, the median (25-75th percentile) numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists were 11 (5-24) and 7 (2-17), respectively. Compared with hospitals without intensivists, hospitals with privileged intensivists were primarily located in metropolitan areas (91% vs 50%; p < 0.001) and at the aggregate level had nearly thrice the number of hospital beds (403,522 [75%] vs 137,146 [25%]), 3.6 times the number of ICU beds (74,222 [78%] vs 20,615 [22%]), and almost twice as many ICUs (3,383 [65%] vs 1,846 [35%]). At the hospital level, hospitals with privileged intensivists had significantly more hospital beds (median, 213 vs 68; p < 0.0001), ICU beds (median, 32 vs 8; p < 0.0001), a higher ratio of ICU to hospital beds (15.6% vs 12.6%; p < 0.0001), and a higher number of ICUs per hospital (2 vs 1; p < 0.0001) than hospitals without intensivists.ConclusionsAnalyzing the intensivist section of the American Hospital Association Annual Survey database is a novel approach to estimating the numbers of privileged and full-time equivalent intensivists in acute care hospitals with ICU beds in the United States. This methodology opens the door to an enhanced understanding of the current supply and distribution of intensivists as well as future research into the intensivist workforce.

Project description:To compare the prevalence, resource utilization, and mortality for pediatric severe sepsis identified using two established identification strategies.Observational cohort study from 2004 to 2012.Forty-four pediatric hospitals contributing data to the Pediatric Health Information Systems database.Children 18 years old or younger.We identified patients with severe sepsis or septic shock by using two International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification-based coding strategies: 1) combinations of International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes for infection plus organ dysfunction (combination code cohort); 2) International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, Clinical Modification codes for severe sepsis and septic shock (sepsis code cohort). Outcomes included prevalence of severe sepsis, as well as hospital and ICU length of stay, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between the two cohorts examining aggregate differences over the study period and trends over time. The combination code cohort identified 176,124 hospitalizations (3.1% of all hospitalizations), whereas the sepsis code cohort identified 25,236 hospitalizations (0.45%), a seven-fold difference. Between 2004 and 2012, the prevalence of sepsis increased from 3.7% to 4.4% using the combination code cohort and from 0.4% to 0.7% using the sepsis code cohort (p < 0.001 for trend in each cohort). Length of stay (hospital and ICU) and costs decreased in both cohorts over the study period (p < 0.001). Overall, hospital mortality was higher in the sepsis code cohort than the combination code cohort (21.2% [95% CI, 20.7-21.8] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.0-8.3]). Over the 9-year study period, there was an absolute reduction in mortality of 10.9% (p < 0.001) in the sepsis code cohort and 3.8% (p < 0.001) in the combination code cohort.Prevalence of pediatric severe sepsis increased in the studied U.S. children's hospitals over the past 9 years, whereas resource utilization and mortality decreased. Epidemiologic estimates of pediatric severe sepsis varied up to seven-fold depending on the strategy used for case ascertainment.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess the variability in short-term sepsis mortality by hospital among Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries in the United States during 2013-2014. DESIGN:A retrospective cohort design. SETTING:Hospitalizations from 3,068 acute care hospitals that participated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services inpatient prospective payment system in 2013 and 2014. PATIENTS:Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries greater than or equal to 65 years old who had an inpatient hospitalization coded with present at admission severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Individual level mortality was assessed as death at or within 7 days of hospital discharge and aggregated to calculate hospital-level mortality rates. We used a logistic hierarchal linear model to calculate mortality risk-adjusted for patient characteristics. We quantified variability among hospitals using the median odds ratio and calculated risk-standardized mortality rates for each hospital. The overall crude mortality rate was 34.7%. We found significant variability in mortality by hospital (p < 0.001). The middle 50% of hospitals had similar risk-standardized mortality rates (32.7-36.9%), whereas the decile of hospitals with the highest risk-standardized mortality rates had a median mortality rate of 40.7%, compared with a median of 29.2% for hospitals in the decile with the lowest risk-standardized mortality rates. The median odds ratio (1.29) was lower than the adjusted odds ratios for several measures of patient comorbidities and severity of illness, including present at admission organ dysfunction, no identified source of infection, and age. CONCLUSIONS:In a large study of present at admission sepsis among Medicare beneficiaries, we showed that mortality was most strongly associated with underlying comorbidities and measures of illness on arrival. However, after adjusting for patient characteristics, mortality also modestly depended on where a patient with sepsis received care, suggesting that efforts to improve sepsis outcomes in lower performing hospitals could impact sepsis survival.