Association of Medicaid expansion with birth outcomes: evidence from a natural experiment in Texas.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence on the effects of Medicaid expansion is mixed and highly state-dependent. The objective of this study is to examine the association of Medicaid expansion with preterm birth and low birth weight, which are linked to a higher risk of infant mortality and chronic health conditions throughout life, providing evidence from a non-expansion state, overall and by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We used the newborn patient records obtained from Texas Public Use Data Files from 2010 to 2019 for hospitals in Texarkana, which is located on the border of Texas and Arkansas, with all of the hospitals serving pregnancy and childbirth patients on the Texas side of the border. We employed difference-in-differences models to estimate the effect of Medicaid expansion on birth outcomes (preterm birth and low birth weight) overall and by race/ethnicity. Newborns from Arkansas (expanded Medicaid in 2014) constituted the treatment group, while those from Texas (did not adopt the expansion) were the control group. We utilized a difference-in-differences event study framework to examine the gradual impact of the Medicaid expansion on birth outcomes. RESULTS: Medicaid expansion was associated with a 1.38-percentage-point decrease (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09-2.67) in preterm birth overall. Event study results suggest that preterm births decreased gradually over time. Medicaid expansion was associated with a 2.04-percentage-point decrease (95% CI, 0.24-3.85) in preterm birth and a 1.75-percentage-point decrease (95% CI, 0.42-3.08) in low birth weight for White infants. However, Medicaid expansion was not associated with significant changes in birth outcomes for other race/ethnicity groups.  CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that Medicaid expansion in Texas can potentially improve birth outcomes. However, bridging racial disparities in birth outcomes might require further efforts such as promoting preconception and prenatal care, especially among the Black population.

Hospital competition and health outcomes: Evidence from acute myocardial infarction admissions in Germany.

Countries increasingly rely on competition among hospitals to improve health outcomes. However, there is limited empirical evidence on the effect of competition on health outcomes in Germany. We examined the effect of hospital competition on quality of care, which is assessed using health outcomes (risk-adjusted in-hospital and post-hospitalization mortality and cardiac-related readmissions), focusing on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment. We obtained data on all hospital utilizations and mortality of 13.2% of the population from a large statutory health insurer and all AMI admission records from Diagnosis-Related Groups Statistic from 2015-19. We constructed the measures of hospital competition, which mitigates the possibility of endogeneity bias. The relationships between health outcomes and competition measures are estimated using linear probability models. Intense competition was associated with lower quality of care in terms of mortality and cardiac-related readmissions. Patients treated in hospitals facing high competition were 0.9 (1.2) percentage points more likely to die within 90 days (2 years) of admission, and 1.4 (1.6) percentage points more likely to be readmitted within 90 days (2 years) of discharge than patients treated in hospitals facing low competition. Our results indicate that hospital competition does not lead to better health outcomes for AMI patients in Germany. Therefore, additional measures are necessary to achieve quality improvement.

Socioeconomic Disparities In Mortality And Health Care Use During The COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From Germany.

Across the globe, populations with low socioeconomic status have borne a disproportionate burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article examines the relationship between two socioeconomic factors (education and income) and all-cause mortality and health care use to improve understanding of the impact of the pandemic on socioeconomic disparities in Germany, a high-income country with a universal health care system. We used mortality rates from the period 2011-21 and hospitalizations from the period 2014-21. We examined rates of all-cause mortality and all hospital admissions as well as admissions for respiratory, emergency, cancer surgery, elective, and ambulatory care-sensitive care. Although the use of some health care services was affected by the pandemic, our findings suggest that Germany endured COVID-19 without amplifying socioeconomic disparities in all-cause mortality and large segments of inpatient utilization.

Public Reporting Of Hospital Quality Measures Has Not Led To Overall Quality Improvement: Evidence From Germany.

Hospital quality has been measured and made publicly available for decades in the US and for more than a decade in Germany, as part of an effort to help those countries achieve quality improvement. The German hospital market presents a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between public reporting and quality improvement in the absence of performance-linked payment incentives in a high-income country. We considered quality indicators from several important categories of health services provided in hospitals (hip, knee, obstetrics, neonatology, heart, neck artery surgery, pressure ulcers, and pneumonia), using structured hospital quality reports from the period 2012-19. Our findings support the idea that public reporting provides a quality benchmark and prevents the provision of very low quality health care services, suggesting that imposing financial punishment on low performers is not necessary and may hinder quality improvement and aggravate health disparities. Although hospitals' intrinsic motivation and market forces play roles in improving quality, they are not sufficient to maintain the quality of high-performing hospitals. Therefore, in addition to rewarding high-performing institutions, aligning quality incentives with the intrinsic professional values of clinical care may be useful in achieving quality improvement.

What drives different treatment choices? Investigation of hospital ownership, system membership and competition.

BACKGROUND: Differences in ownership types have attracted considerable interest because of policy implications. Moreover, competition in hospital markets is promoted to reduce health care spending. However, the effects of system membership and competition on treatment choices of hospitals have not been considered in studying hospital ownership types. We examine the treatment choices of hospitals considering ownership types (not-for-profit, for-profit, and government), system membership, patient insurance status (insured, and uninsured) and hospital competition in the United States. METHODS: We estimate the probability of according the procedure as the treatment employing logistic regression. We consider all procedures accorded at hospitals, controlling for procedure type and diagnosis as well as relevant patient and hospital characteristics. Competition faced by hospitals is measured using a distance-weighted approach separately for procedural groups. Patient records are obtained from State Inpatient Databases for 11 states and hospital characteristics come from American Hospital Association Annual Survey. RESULTS: Not-for-profit hospitals facing low for-profit competition that are nonmembers of hospital systems, act like government hospitals, whereas not-for-profits facing high for-profit competition and system member not-for-profits facing low for-profit competition are not statistically significantly different from their for-profit counterparts in terms of treatment choices. Uninsured patients are on average 7% less likely to be accorded the procedure as the treatment at system member not-for-profit hospitals facing high for-profit competition than insured patients. System member not-for-profit hospitals, which account for over half of the observations in the analysis, are on average 16% more likely to accord the procedure as the treatment when facing high for-profit competition than low-for-profit competition. CONCLUSIONS: We show that treatment choices of hospitals differ by system membership and the level of for-profit competition faced by the hospitals in addition to hospital ownership type and health insurance status of patients. Our results support that hospital system member not-for-profits and not-for-profits facing high for-profit competition are for-profits in disguise. Therefore, system membership is an important characteristic to consider in addition to market competitiveness when tax exemption of not-for-profits are revisited. Moreover, higher competition may lead to increasing health care costs due to more aggressive treatment choices, which should be taken into account while regulating hospital markets.

Medicare and Private Insurance Variations in New Medical Technology: The Case of Drug Eluting Stents.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the geographic and hospital variations of the new medical technologies in Medicare. Even less is known about these variations for the privately insured. OBJECTIVE: To examine geographic and hospital variations in the diffusion of drug eluting stents, comparing Medicare and privately insured populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of discharges from the State Inpatient Databases for 11 states (2004-2005) supplemented with data on hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Study sample included discharges with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures that involved a cardiac stent. EXPOSURE: Insurance type: Medicare versus private insurance. MAIN OUTCOME: Use of a drug eluting stent during the PCI was our outcome variable. We estimated linear probability models at the discharge level that related our outcome variable to patient and hospital characteristics separately for Medicare and private insurance. To examine variations across hospital referral regions (HRRs) and across hospitals, our models included HRR and hospital indicators respectively. RESULTS: Our analysis included 390,649 records (237,991 Medicare, 152,658 private insurance). We found large HRR variations in the use of drug eluting stents in 2004 for both payer types, the year after drug eluting stents were approved (adjusted CoV: 0.35 (Medicare); 0.24 (Private Insurance)). We also found large hospital variations in 2004 (adjusted CoV: 0.32 (Medicare); 0.29 (Private Insurance)). Between 2004 and 2005, adjusted HRR and hospital variations decreased across both payer types, suggesting that practice styles converged as the drug eluting stents diffused and became more common. Finally, adjusted drug eluting stent rates were highly correlated both at the HRR and hospital level across payer types. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that private insurance closely follows the lead of Medicare in terms of medical technology coverage and reimbursement.

Hospital ownership type and treatment choices.

In the face of increasing health care costs, taxing not-for-profit hospitals may be seen as the right choice to increase government revenues if not-for-profit hospitals are not different from their for-profit counterparts. This study investigates how hospital ownership type affects treatment choices to show whether ownership type and teaching status are correlated with choosing a procedure as the treatment and how these choices relate to patient insurance type. Not-for-profit hospitals significantly differ from for-profits in terms of treatment choices of less profitable patients and all hospitals are more likely to accord the procedure when the patient is privately insured than uninsured though teaching government hospitals are the most likely to accord the procedures for all insurance types. Considering treatment choices, not-for-profit hospitals have different objectives than for-profit and government hospitals and in terms of profit-seeking behavior, not-for-profit hospitals seem to lie between for-profit and government hospitals.