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.

Chronic Illness in Children and Foregone Care Among Household Adults in the United States: A National Study.

BACKGROUND: Childhood chronic illness imposes financial burdens that may affect the entire family. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess whether adults living with children with 2 childhood chronic illnesses-asthma and diabetes-are more likely to forego their own medical care, and experience financial strain, relative to those living with children without these illnesses. RESEARCH DESIGN: 2009-2018 National Health Interview Survey. SUBJECTS: Adult-child dyads, consisting of one randomly sampled child and adult in each family. MEASURES: The main exposure was a diagnosis of asthma or diabetes in the child. The outcomes were delayed/foregone medical care for the adult as well as family financial strain; the authors evaluated their association with the child's illness using multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: The authors identified 93,264 adult-child dyads; 8499 included a child with asthma, and 179 a child with diabetes. Families with children with either illness had more medical bill problems, food insecurity, and medical expenses. Adults living with children with each illness reported more health care access problems. For instance, relative to other adults, those living with a child with asthma were more likely to forego/delay care (14.7% vs. 10.2%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.16-1.39) and were more likely to forego medications, specialist, mental health, and dental care. Adults living with a child with diabetes were also more likely to forego/delay care (adjusted odds ratio: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: Adults living with children with chronic illnesses may sacrifice their own care because of cost concerns. Reducing out-of-pocket health care costs, improving health coverage, and expanding social supports for families with children with chronic conditions might mitigate such impacts.

Trends and Disparities in the Distribution of Outpatient Physicians' Annual Face Time with Patients, 1979-2018.

BACKGROUND: Physician time is a valuable yet finite resource. Whether such time is apportioned equitably among population subgroups, and how the provision of that time has changed in recent decades, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends and racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of annual face time with physicians in the USA. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional. SETTING: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1979-1981, 1985, 1989-2016, 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Office-based physicians. MEASURES: Exposures included race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic); age (<18, 18-64, and 65+); and survey year. Our main outcome was patients' annual visit face time with a physician; secondary outcomes include annual visit rates and mean visit duration. RESULTS: Our sample included n=1,108,835 patient visits. From 1979 to 2018, annual outpatient physician face time per capita rose from 40.0 to 60.4 min, an increase driven by a rise in mean visit length and not in the number of visits. However, since 2005, mean annual face time with a primary care physician has fallen, a decline offset by rising time with specialists. Face time provided per physician changed little given growth in the physician workforce. A racial/ethnic gap in physician visit time present at the beginning of the study period widened over time. In 2014-2018, White individuals received 70.0 min of physician face time per year, vs. 52.4 among Black and 53.0 among Hispanic individuals. This disparity was driven by differences in visit rates, not mean visit length, and in the provision of specialist but not primary care. LIMITATION: Self-reported visit length. CONCLUSION: Americans' annual face time with office-based physicians rose for three decades after 1979, yet is still allocated inequitably, particularly by specialists; meanwhile, time spent by Americans with primary care physicians is falling. These trends and disparities may adversely affect patient outcomes. Policy change is needed to assure better allocation of this resource.

Uptake and Equity in Influenza Vaccination Among Veterans with VA Coverage, Veterans Without VA Coverage, and Non-Veterans in the USA, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a primary method of reducing the burden of influenza, yet uptake is neither optimal nor equitable. Single-tier, primary care-oriented health systems may have an advantage in the efficiency and equity of vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of Veterans' Health Administration (VA) coverage with influenza vaccine uptake and disparities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Adult respondents to the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey. MAIN MEASURES: We examined influenza vaccination rates, and racial/ethnic and income-based vaccination disparities, among veterans with VA coverage, veterans without VA coverage, and adult non-veterans. We performed multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for demographics and self-reported health, with interaction terms to examine differential effects by race/ethnicity and income. KEY RESULTS: Our sample included n=2,277 veterans with VA coverage, n=2,821 veterans without VA coverage, and n=46,456 non-veterans. Veterans were more often White and male; among veterans, those with VA coverage had worse health and lower incomes. Veterans with VA coverage had a higher unadjusted vaccination rate (63.0%) than veterans without VA coverage (59.1%) and non-veterans (46.5%) (p<0.05 for each comparison). In our adjusted model, non-veterans were 11.4 percentage points (95% CI -14.3, -8.5) less likely than veterans with VA coverage to be vaccinated, and veterans without VA coverage were 6.7 percentage points (95% CI -10.3, -3.0) less likely to be vaccinated than those with VA coverage. VA coverage, compared with non-veteran status, was also associated with reduced racial/ethnic and income disparities in vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: VA coverage is associated with higher and more equitable influenza vaccination rates. A single-tier health system that emphasizes primary care may improve the uptake and equity of vaccination for influenza, and possibly other pathogens, like SARS-CoV2.

The Association of Childbirth with Medical Debt in the USA, 2019-2020.

BACKGROUND: Medical debt affects one in five adults in the USA and may disproportionately burden postpartum women due to pregnancy-related medical costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between childbirth and medical debt, and the correlates of medical debt among postpartum women, in the USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed female "sample adults" 18-49 years old in the 2019-2020 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative household survey. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary exposure was whether the subject gave birth in the past year. We had two family-level debt outcomes: problems paying medical bills and inability to pay medical bills. We examined the association between live birth and medical debt outcomes, unadjusted and adjusted for potential confounders in multivariable logistic regressions. Among postpartum women, we also examined the association between medical debt with maternal asthma, hypertension, and gestational diabetes and several sociodemographic factors. KEY RESULTS: Our sample included n = 12,163 women, n = 645 with a live birth in the past year. Postpartum women were younger, more likely to have Medicaid, and lived in larger families than those not postpartum. 19.8% of postpartum women faced difficulty with medical bills versus 15.1% who were not; in multivariable regression, postpartum women had 48% higher adjusted odds of medical debt problems (95% CI 1.13, 1.92). Results were similar when examining inability to pay medical bills, and similar differences were seen for privately insured women. Among postpartum women, those with lower incomes and with asthma or gestational diabetes, but not hypertension, had significantly higher adjusted odds of medical debt problems. CONCLUSIONS: Postpartum women experience higher levels of medical debt than other women; poorer women and those with common chronic diseases may have an even higher burden. Policies to expand and improve health coverage for this population are needed to improve maternal health and the welfare of young families.

Century-Long Trends in the Financing and Ownership of American Health Care.

Policy Points Over the past century, the tax-financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance. For-profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees. US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted. CONTEXT: Who pays for health care-and who owns it-determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century. METHODS: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for-profit), and private (not-for-profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not-for-profit, or for-profit entities or "self-employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer-sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees. FINDINGS: For-profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not-for-profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer-financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer-financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth. CONCLUSIONS: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted.

COVID-19 Risk by Workers' Occupation and Industry in the United States, 2020‒2021.

Objectives. To assess the risk of COVID-19 by occupation and industry in the United States. Methods. Using the 2020-2021 National Health Interview Survey, we estimated the risk of having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 by workers' industry and occupation, with and without adjustment for confounders. We also examined COVID-19 period prevalence by the number of workers in a household. Results. Relative to workers in other industries and occupations, those in the industry "health care and social assistance" (adjusted prevalence ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval = 1.11, 1.37), or in the occupations "health practitioners and technical," "health care support," or "protective services" had elevated risks of COVID-19. However, compared with nonworkers, workers in 12 of 21 industries and 11 of 23 occupations (e.g., manufacturing, food preparation, and sales) were at elevated risk. COVID-19 prevalence rose with each additional worker in a household. Conclusions. Workers in several industries and occupations with public-facing roles and adults in households with multiple workers had elevated risk of COVID-19. Public Health Implications. Stronger workplace protections, paid sick leave, and better health care access might mitigate working families' risks from this and future pandemics. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(6):647-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307249).

Population-level trends in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emergency department visits and hospitalizations before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified reductions in exacerbations of chronic lung disease in many locales after onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the population-level impacts of COVID-19 on asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations-with a focus on disadvantaged communities-in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed 2016 to 2020 county-level data on asthma and COPD acute care use, with myocardial infarction hospitalizations as a comparator condition. We linked this with county-level lower respiratory disease mortality data. We calculated rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and deaths and evaluated changes using linear regressions adjusted for year and county-fixed effects. For a supplementary analysis, we calculated ED visit rates nationwide for asthma, COPD, or any diagnosis using the 2016 to 2020 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: Our county-level data included 685 counties in 13 states. Rates of each outcome fell in 2020. In adjusted analyses, we found large reductions in asthma and COPD ED visit rates (eg, a 21.5 per 10,000-person reduction in COPD ED visits; 95% confidence interval, -23.8 to -19.1), with smaller reductions in hospitalizations and chronic lower respiratory mortality. Disadvantaged communities had mostly higher baseline rates of respiratory morbidity and larger absolute reductions in some outcomes. Among 90,808 ED visits in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, asthma ED visits/y fell 33% during the pandemic and COPD visits by 51%; overall ED visits fell by only 7%. CONCLUSION: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with reductions in acute care utilization for asthma and COPD. Understanding the mechanism of this reduction might inform future efforts to prevent exacerbations.

Association Between High Deductible Health Plans and Cost-Related Non-adherence to Medications Among Americans with Diabetes: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: For people with diabetes, adherence to prescribed medications is essential. However, the rising prevalence of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), and prices of diabetes medications such as insulin, could deter adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of HDHP on cost-related medication non-adherence (CRN) among non-elderly adults with diabetes in the US. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional survey. SETTING: National Health Interview Survey, 2011-2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7469 privately insured adults ages 18-64 with diabetes who were prescribed medications and enrolled in a HDHP or a traditional commercial health plan (TCP). MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported measures of CRN were compared between enrollees in HDHPs and TCPs overall and among the subset using insulin. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics using multivariable linear regression models. KEY RESULTS: HDHP enrollees were more likely than TCP enrollees to not fill a prescription (13.4% vs 9.9%; adjusted percentage point difference (AD) 3.4 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.4]); skip medication doses (11.4% vs 8.5%; AD 2.8 [CI 1.0 to 4.7]); take less medication (11.1% vs 8.8%; AD 2.3 [CI 0.5 to 4.0]); delay filling a prescription to save money (14.4% vs 10.8%; AD 3.0 [CI 1.1 to 4.9]); and to have any form of CRN (20.4% vs 15.5%; AD 4.4 [CI 2.2 to 6.7]). Among those taking insulin, HDHP enrollees were more likely to have any CRN (25.1% vs 18.9%; AD 5.9 [CI 1.1 to 10.8]). CONCLUSION: HDHPs are associated with greater CRN among people with diabetes, particularly those prescribed insulin. For people with diabetes, enrollment in non-HDHPs might reduce CRN to prescribed medications.

The Effect of Large-scale Health Coverage Expansions in Wealthy Nations on Society-Wide Healthcare Utilization.

Most analysts project that a reform like Medicare-for-All that lowers financial barriers to care would cause a surge in the utilization of services, raising costs despite stable or even reduced prices. However, the finite supply of physicians and hospital beds could constrain such utilization increases. We reviewed the effects of 13 universal coverage expansions in capitalist nations on physician and hospital utilization, beginning with New Zealand's 1938 Social Security Act up through the 2010 Affordable Care Act in the USA. Almost all coverage expansions had either a small (i.e., < 10%) or no effect on society-wide utilization. However, coverage expansions often redistributed care-increasing use among newly covered groups while producing small, offsetting reductions among those already covered. We conclude that in wealthy nations, large-scale coverage expansions need not cause overall utilization to surge if provider supply is controlled. However, such reforms could redirect care towards patients who most need it.

The Effects on Hospital Utilization of the 1966 and 2014 Health Insurance Coverage Expansions in the United States.

Background: Persons with comprehensive health insurance use more hospital care than those who are uninsured or have high-deductible plans. Consequently, analysts generally assume that expanding coverage will increase society-wide use of inpatient services. However, a limited supply of beds might constrain this growth. Objective: To determine how the implementations of Medicare and Medicaid (1966) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (2014) affected hospital use. Design: Repeated cross-sectional study. Setting: Nationally representative surveys. Participants: Respondents to the National Health Interview Survey (1962 to 1970) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008 to 2015). Measurements: Mean hospital discharges and days were measured, both society-wide and among subgroups defined by income, age, and health status. Changes between preexpansion and postexpansion periods were analyzed using multivariable negative binomial regression. Results: Overall hospital discharges averaged 12.8 per 100 persons in the 3 years before implementation of Medicare and Medicaid and 12.7 per 100 persons in the 4 years after (adjusted difference, 0.2 discharges [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 discharges] per 100 persons; P = 0.26). Hospital days did not change in the first 2 years after implementation but increased later. Effects differed by subpopulation: Adjusted discharges increased by 2.4 (CI, 1.7 to 3.1) per 100 persons among elderly compared with nonelderly persons (P < 0.001) and also increased among those with low incomes compared with high-income populations. For younger and higher-income persons, use decreased. Similarly, after the ACA's implementation, overall hospital use did not change: Society-wide rates of discharge were 9.4 per 100 persons before the ACA and 9.0 per 100 persons after the ACA (adjusted difference, -0.6 discharges [CI, -1.3 to 0.2 discharges] per 100 persons; P = 0.133), and hospital days were also stable. Trends differed for some subgroups, and rates decreased significantly in unadjusted (but not adjusted) analyses among persons reporting good or better health status and increased nonsignificantly among those in worse health. Limitation: Data sources relied on participant recall, surveys excluded institutionalized persons, and follow-up after the ACA was limited. Conclusion: Past coverage expansions were associated with little or no change in society-wide hospital use; increases in groups who gained coverage were offset by reductions among others, suggesting that bed supply limited increases in use. Reducing coverage may merely shift care toward wealthier and healthier persons. Conversely, universal coverage is unlikely to cause a surge in hospital use if growth in hospital capacity is carefully constrained. Primary Funding Source: None.

The Incidence of Diabetic Ketoacidosis During "Emerging Adulthood" in the USA and Canada: a Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: As children with diabetes transition to adulthood, they may be especially vulnerable to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Cross-national comparisons may inform efforts to avoid this complication. OBJECTIVE: To compare DKA hospitalization rates in the USA and Manitoba, Canada, during the vulnerable years known as "emerging adulthood." DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using inpatient administrative databases in the USA (years 1998-2014) and Manitoba, Canada (years 2003-2013). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 12-30 years hospitalized with DKA, identified using ICD-9 (USA) or ICD-10 codes (Manitoba). MAIN MEASURES: DKA hospitalization rates per 10,000 population by age (with a focus on those aged 15-17 vs. 19-21). Admissions were characterized by gender, socioeconomic status, year of hospitalization, and mortality during hospitalization. KEY RESULTS: The DKA rate was slightly higher in the USA among those aged 15-17: 4.8 hospitalizations/10,000 population vs. 3.7/10,000 in Manitoba. Among those aged 19-21, the DKA hospitalization rate rose 90% in the USA to 9.2/10,000, vs. 23% in Manitoba, to 4.5/10,000. In both the USA and Manitoba, rates were higher among those from poorer areas, and among adolescent girls compared with adolescent boys. DKA admissions rose gradually during the period under study in the USA, but not in Manitoba. CONCLUSIONS: In years of "emerging adulthood," the Canadian healthcare system appears to perform better than that of the USA in preventing hospitalizations for DKA. Although many factors likely contribute to this difference, universal and seamless coverage over the lifespan in Canada may contribute.

Coverage Expansions and Utilization of Physician Care: Evidence From the 2014 Affordable Care Act and 1966 Medicare/Medicaid Expansions.

Objectives. To evaluate the effects of the 2 major coverage expansions in US history-Medicare/Medicaid in 1966 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014-on the utilization of physician care.Methods. Using the National Health Interview Survey (1963-1969; 2011-2016), we analyzed trends in utilization of physician services society-wide and by targeted subgroups.Results. Following Medicare/Medicaid's implementation, society-wide utilization remained unchanged. While visits by low-income persons increased 6.2% (P < .01) and surgical procedures among the elderly increased 14.7% (P < .01), decreases among nontargeted groups offset these increases. After the ACA, society-wide utilization again remained unchanged. Increased utilization among targeted low-income groups (e.g., a 3.5-percentage-point increase in the proportion of persons earning less than or equal to 138% of the federal poverty level with at least 1 office visit [P < .001]) was offset by small, nonsignificant reductions among the nontargeted population.Conclusions. Past coverage expansions in the United States have redistributed physician care, but have not increased society-wide utilization in the short term, possibly because of the limited supply of physicians.Public Health Implications. These findings suggest that future expansions may not cause unaffordable surges in utilization.

Hospital Assets Before and After Private Equity Acquisition.

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

The Affordable Care Act: implications for health-care equity.

Inequalities in medical care are endemic in the USA. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014, was intended to expand coverage and bring about a new era of health-care access. In this review, we evaluate the legislation's impact on health-care equity. We consider the law's coverage expansion, insurance market reforms, cost and affordability provisions, and delivery-system reforms. Although the ACA improved coverage and access-particularly for poorer Americans, women, and minorities-its overall impact was modest in comparison with the gaps present before the law's implementation. Today, 29 million people in the USA remain uninsured, and substantial inequalities in access along economic, gender, and racial lines persist. Although most Americans agree that further reform is needed, the proper direction for reform-especially following the 2016 presidential election-is highly contentious. We discuss proposals for change from opposite sides of the political spectrum, together with their potential impact on health equity.