Dataset Information

Effect of newborn screening for critical CHD on healthcare utilisation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of state-mandated policies for pulse oximetry screening on healthcare utilisation, with a focus on use of echocardiograms.

Data sources/study setting

Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project, Statewide Inpatient Databases from 2008 to 2014 from six states.

Methods

We defined pre- and post-mandate cohorts based on dates when pulse oximetry became mandated in each state. Linear segmented regression models for interrupted time series assessed associations between implementation of the screening and changes in rate of newborns with Critical CHD-negative echocardiogram results. We also evaluated the changes in rate of newborns who underwent echocardiogram but were not diagnosed with any health issues that could cause hypoxemia.

Results

We identified 5967 critical CHD-negative echocardiograms (2847 and 3120 in the pre- and post-mandate periods, respectively). Our models detected a statistically significant increasing trend in rate of critical CHD-negative echocardiograms in the pre-mandate period (Incidence Rate Ratio: 1.08, p = 0.02), but did not detect any statistical differences in changes between pre- and post-mandate periods (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.93, p = 0.14). Among non-Whites, an increasing trend of Critical CHD-negative echocardiogram during the pre-mandate period was detected (Incidence Rate Ratio 1.12, p < 0.01) and was attenuated during the post-mandate period (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.89, p = 0.02). Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analyses among both Whites and non-Whites.

Conclusions

Results suggest that mandatory state screening policies are associated with reductions in false-positive screening rates for hypoxemic conditions, with reductions primarily attributed to trends among non-Whites.

SUBMITTER: Sakai-Bizmark R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8096776 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of cannabis legalisation on health effects and healthcare utilisation in Colorado (CO), the first state to legalise recreational cannabis, when compared with two control states, New York (NY) and Oklahoma (OK). DESIGN:We used the 2010 to 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project (HCUP) inpatient databases to compare changes in rates of healthcare utilisation and diagnoses in CO versus NY and OK. SETTING:Population-based, inpatient. PARTICIPANTS:HCUP state-wide data comprising over 28?million individuals and over 16?million hospitalisations across three states. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:We used International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition codes to assess changes in healthcare utilisation specific to various medical diagnoses potentially treated by or exacerbated by cannabis. Diagnoses were classified based on weight of evidence from the National Academy of Science (NAS). Negative binomial models were used to compare rates of admissions between states. RESULTS:In CO compared with NY and OK, respectively, cannabis abuse hospitalisations increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.28 and RR 1.16, 95%?CI 1.15 to 1.17; both p<0.0005) post-legalisation. In CO, there was a reduction in total admissions but only when compared with OK (RR 0.97, 95%?CI 0.96 to 0.98, p<0.0005). Length of stay and costs did not change significantly in CO compared with NY or OK. Post-legalisation changes most consistent with NAS included an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injury and a reduction in chronic pain admissions (all p<0.05 compared with each control state). CONCLUSIONS:Recreational cannabis legalisation is associated with neutral effects on healthcare utilisation. In line with previous evidence, cannabis liberalisation is linked to an increase in motor vehicle accidents, alcohol abuse, overdose injuries and a decrease in chronic pain admissions. Such population-level effects may help guide future decisions regarding cannabis use, prescription and policy.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the characteristics and healthcare utilisation of high-cost patients and to compare high-cost patients across payers and countries. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:PubMed and Embase databases were searched until 30 October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES:Our final search was built on three themes: 'high-cost', 'patients', and 'cost' and 'cost analysis'. We included articles that reported characteristics and utilisation of the top-X% (eg, top-5% and top-10%) patients of costs of a given population. Analyses were limited to studies that covered a broad range of services, across the continuum of care. Andersen's behavioural model was used to categorise characteristics and determinants into predisposing, enabling and need characteristics. RESULTS:The studies pointed to a high prevalence of multiple (chronic) conditions to explain high-cost patients' utilisation. Besides, we found a high prevalence of mental illness across all studies and a prevalence higher than 30% in US Medicaid and total population studies. Furthermore, we found that high costs were associated with increasing age but that still more than halve of high-cost patients were younger than 65 years. High costs were associated with higher incomes in the USA but with lower incomes elsewhere. Preventable spending was estimated at maximally 10% of spending. The top-10%, top-5% and top-1% high-cost patients accounted for respectively 68%, 55% and 24% of costs within a given year. Spending persistency varied between 24% and 48%. Finally, we found that no more than 30% of high-cost patients are in their last year of life. CONCLUSIONS:High-cost patients make up the sickest and most complex populations, and their high utilisation is primarily explained by high levels of chronic and mental illness. High-cost patients are diverse populations and vary across payer types and countries. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost patients and to avoid waste of scarce resources.

Project description:Background/aimsCancer burden is predicted to double by 2030 in sub-Saharan Africa; access to healthcare services for cancer management is a priority in the region. In Nigeria, National Cancer Control Plan aims to ensure >50% cancer screening of eligible populations by 2022 for all Nigerians. We describe healthcare utilisation, cancer screening activities and potential barriers to accessing cancer care within an understudied rural community-based adult population in South West Nigeria.MethodsIn April 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional study of community-based adults (>18 years) ~130 km east of Ibadan, 250 km from Lagos in Osun State, South West Nigeria. Participants completed a face-to-face survey in local dialect. We used a questionnaire to assess demographics, health status, income, medical expenditures, doctor visits and cancer screening history.ResultsWe enrolled 346 individuals: with median age of 52 years and 75% women. Of the entire cohort, 4% had medical insurance. 46% reported a major medical cost in the last year. Cancer screening activities were infrequent in eligible participants: 1.5% reported having had cervical cancer screening, 3.3% mammogram and 5% colonoscopy screening. Cancer screening assessment was less frequent in those with less income and lower education levels. Using a multivariable logistic regression model including personal income, insurance status and education, higher personal income was associated with more cancer screening activity (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.7, p<0.01). Despite this, most individuals had contact with a primary healthcare doctor (52% in the last year), and over 70% access to radio and TV suggesting the opportunity to expand community-based screening interventions and awareness exists.ConclusionsDespite national increases in cancer cases, we highlight a deficiency in cancer screening and universal healthcare coverage within a community-based adult Nigerian population. Subject to availability of governmental resources, increasing financial risk protection, awareness and targeted resource allocation may help expand access in Nigeria.