Influence of Insurance Status on Subdural Hematoma Management: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a major public health concern with a rising incidence in the United States. Prior studies have looked at associations between insurance status and traumatic brain injury, but none have focused specifically on traumatic subdural hematomas (SDH). It is important to evaluate whether insurance and/or other social determinants of health play a role in treatment and outcomes of traumatic SDH. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank was conducted from 2012 to 2016 to look at associations between insurance status and management of SDH with surgery versus intracranial pressure (ICP)/EVD monitoring. Secondary outcomes of interest were emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ICU admission, ICU LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 68,687 adult patients with a single diagnosis of subdural hematoma. Overall, self-pay patients with SDH were younger, predominately male, and more likely to be non-white compared to patients with public or private health insurance.  More specifically, Black/African American SDH patients made up a large percentage of the self-pay category (15.5%; P < 0.001) compared to publicly and privately insured (7.5% and 8.0%, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale, alcohol intoxication, and trauma center level, publicly insured patients were 1.86 (95% CI 1.36-2.55, P < 0.001) times more likely to undergo a craniotomy or craniectomy compared to self-pay patients. However, insurance status did not appear to impact whether a patient received ICP/EVD monitoring (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.24-1.18, P = 0.118). There was no statistically significant difference in ED LOS, Hospital LOS, and ICU LOS between insurance categories. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly insured patients have higher odds of undergoing surgical management for traumatic SDH compared to self-pay patients. Further studies evaluating this association are warranted.

Treatment of Acute Cholecystitis: Do Medicaid and Non-Medicaid Enrolled Patients Receive the Same Care?

BACKGROUND: Nationally, Medicaid enrollees with emergency surgical conditions experience worse outcomes overall when compared with privately insured patients. The goal of this study is to investigate disparities in the treatment of cholecystitis based on insurance type and to identify contributing factors. METHODS: Adults with cholecystitis at a safety-net hospital in Central Massachusetts from 2017-2018 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared based on Medicaid enrollment status (Medicare excluded). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the frequency of surgery, time to surgery (TTS), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates between groups. RESULTS: The sample (n = 203) included 69 Medicaid enrollees (34%), with a mean age of 44.4 years. Medicaid enrollees were younger (p = 0.0006), had lower levels of formal education (high school diploma attainment, p < 0.0001), were more likely to be unmarried (p < 0.0001), Non-White (p = 0.0012), and require an interpreter (p < 0.0001). Patients in both groups experienced similar rates of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, TTS, and LOS; however, Medicaid enrollees experienced more readmissions within 30 days of discharge (30.4% vs 17.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite anticipated population differences, the treatment of acute cholecystitis was similar between Medicaid and Non-Medicaid enrollees, with the exception of readmission. Further research is needed to identify patient, provider, and/or population factors driving this disparity.

Treatment of appendicitis: Do Medicaid and non-Medicaid-enrolled patients receive the same care?

BACKGROUND: Studies using national data sets have suggested that insurance type drives a disparity in the care of emergency surgery patients. Large databases lack the granularity that smaller, single-institution series may provide. The goal of this study is to identify factors that may account for differences in care between Medicaid and non-Medicaid enrollees with appendicitis in central Massachusetts. METHODS: All adult patients with acute appendicitis in an academic medical center between 2010 and 2018 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared according to Medicaid enrollment status. Analyses were performed to assess differences in the frequency of operative treatment, time to surgery, length of stay, and rates of readmission. RESULTS: The sample included 1,257 patients, 10.7% of whom (n = 135) were enrolled in Medicaid. The proportions of patients presenting with perforated appendicitis (28.9% vs 31.2%, P = .857) and undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (96.3% vs 90.7%, P = .081) were similar between the 2 groups, as were length of stay (20 hours 30 minutes versus 22 hours 38 minutes, P = .109) and readmission rates (17.8% vs 14.5%, P = .683). Medicaid enrollees did experience somewhat greater time to surgery (6 hours 47 minutes versus 4 hours 49 minutes, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Despite anticipated differences in population, the treatment of appendicitis was similar between Medicaid and non-Medicaid enrollees. Medicaid enrollees experienced greater time to surgery; however, further studies are needed to explain this disparity in care.