Hospital Capital Assets, Community Health, and the Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Care: A Population-Based Study of US Counties.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality hospital care requires adequate space, buildings, and equipment, although redundant infrastructure could also drive service overprovision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the distribution of physical hospital resources-that is, capital assets-in the United States; its correlation with indicators of community health and nonhealth factors; and the association between hospital capital density and regional hospital utilization and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We created a dataset of n=1733 US counties by analyzing the 2019 Medicare Cost Reports; 2019 State Inpatient Database Community Inpatient Statistics; 2020-2021 Area Health Resource File; 2016-2020 American Community Survey; 2022 PLACES; and 2019 CDC WONDER. We first calculated aggregate hospital capital assets and investment at the county level. Next, we examined the correlation between community's medical need (eg, chronic disease prevalence), ability to pay (eg, insurance), and supply factors with 4 metrics of capital availability. Finally, we examined the association between capital assets and hospital utilization/costs, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Counties with older and sicker populations generally had less aggregate hospital capital per capita, per hospital day, and per hospital discharge, while counties with higher income or insurance coverage had more hospital capital. In linear regressions controlling for medical need and ability to pay, capital assets were associated with greater hospital utilization and costs, for example, an additional $1000 in capital assets per capita was associated with 73 additional discharges per 100,000 population (95% CI: 45-102) and $19 in spending per bed day (95% CI: 12-26). CONCLUSIONS: The level of investment in hospitals is linked to community wealth but not population health needs, and may drive use and costs.

Health Care Access and COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although federal legislation made COVID-19 vaccines free, inequities in access to medical care may affect vaccine uptake. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether health care access was associated with uptake and timeliness of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: 2021 National Health Interview Survey (Q2-Q4). SUBJECTS: In all, 21,532 adults aged≥18 were included in the study. MEASURES: Exposures included 4 metrics of health care access: health insurance, having an established place for medical care, having a physician visit within the past year, and medical care affordability. Outcomes included receipt of 1 or more COVID-19 vaccines and receipt of a first vaccine within 6 months of vaccine availability. We examined the association between each health care access metric and outcome using logistic regression, unadjusted and adjusted for demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic covariates. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, each metric of health care access was associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and (among those vaccinated) early vaccination. In adjusted analyses, having health coverage (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.60; 95% CI: 1.39, 1.84), a usual place of care (AOR 1.58; 95% CI: 1.42, 1.75), and a doctor visit within the past year (AOR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.31, 1.62) remained associated with higher rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Only having a usual place of care was associated with early vaccine uptake in adjusted analyses. LIMITATIONS: Receipt of COVID-19 vaccination was self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Several metrics of health care access are associated with the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. Policies that achieve universal coverage, and facilitate long-term relationships with trusted providers, may be an important component of pandemic responses.

Hospital Assets Before and After Private Equity Acquisition.

This study assesses changes in hospitals' capital assets after private equity acquisition.

Demand and Supply Drivers of Medicare and Non-Medicare Health Spending: An Analysis of U.S. States, 1991-2019.

For the last four decades, policymakers have attempted to control the United States's high health care costs by reducing patients' demand for care (e.g., by imposing managed-care restrictions or high costs on patients at the time of use). Yet studies based mostly on data from the public Medicare program, which covers mostly elderly Americans, suggest that supply (e.g., number of physicians or hospital beds) rather than demand drives aggregate service use and, hence, costs. Using variation between U.S. states in per enrollee Medicare spending versus per capita spending of all other (non-Medicare) individuals, we find that greater supply boosts costs for the entire population. Furthermore, we find that factors that suppress demand in the non-Medicare population do reduce non-Medicare health care spending, but simultaneously increase Medicare spending. This suggests that for a given supply of medical resources, suppressing demand for one group of patients may produce a compensatory increase in provision of care to those whose demand has not been suppressed. Health planning to assure adequate medical resources where they are needed while preventing excess supply where it is duplicative and wasteful is likely a more effective cost control strategy than the imposition of managed-care restrictions or imposing higher costs onto patients seeking care.

Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.

Importance: Decades-old data indicate that people imprisoned in the US have poor access to health care despite their constitutional right to care. Most prisons impose co-payments for at least some medical visits. No recent national studies have assessed access to care or whether co-pays are associated with worse access. Objective: To determine the proportion of people who are incarcerated with health problems or pregnancy who used health services, changes in the prevalence of those conditions since 2004, and the association between their state's standard prison co-payment and care receipt in 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis was conducted in October 2023 and used data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates, a nationally representative sample of adults in state or federal prisons, with some comparisons to the 2004 version of that survey. Exposures: The state's standard, per-visit co-payment amount in 2016 compared with weekly earnings at the prison's minimum wage. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported prevalence of 13 chronic physical conditions, 6 mental health conditions, and current severe psychological distress assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; proportion of respondents with such problems who did not receive any clinician visit or treatment; and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) comparing the likelihood of no clinician visit according to co-payment level. Results: Of 1 421 700 (unweighted: n = 24 848; mean [SD] age, 35.3 [0.3] years; 93.2% male individuals) prison residents in 2016, 61.7% (up from 55.9% in 2004) reported 1 or more chronic physical conditions; among them, 13.8% had received no medical visit since incarceration. A total of 40.1% of respondents reported ever having a mental health condition (up from 24.5% in 2004), of whom 33.0% had received no mental health treatment. A total of 13.3% of respondents met criteria for severe psychological distress, of whom 41.7% had not received mental health treatment in prison. Of state prison residents, 90.4% were in facilities requiring co-payments, including 63.3% in facilities with co-payments exceeding 1 week's prison wage. Co-payments, particularly when high, were associated with not receiving a needed health care visit (co-pay ≤1 week's wage: aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.86; co-pay >1 week's wage: aOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.61-2.93). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that many people who are incarcerated with health problems received no care, particularly in facilities charging co-payments for medical visits.

Less Care at Higher Cost-The Medicare Advantage Paradox.

This Viewpoint makes the case for eliminating Medicare Advantage and doubling down on Traditional Medicare.