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.

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.

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.

Specialty Care Utilization Among Adults with Limited English Proficiency.

BACKGROUND: People with limited English proficiency (LEP) face greater barriers to accessing medical care than those who are English proficient (EP). Language-related differences in the use of outpatient care across the full spectrum of physician specialties have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient visit rates to physicians in 28 specialties by people with LEP vs EP. DESIGN: Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis of nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (pooled 2013-2018) with adjustment for age, sex, and self-reported health status. PARTICIPANTS: 149,611 survey respondents aged 18 and older. EXPOSURE: LEP, defined as taking the survey in a language other than English. MAIN MEASURES: Annual per capita adjusted visit rate ratios (ARRs) comparing visit rates by LEP and EP persons to individual specialties, and to three categories of specialties: (1) primary care (internal or family medicine, geriatrics, general practice, or obstetrics/gynecology), (2) medical-subspecialties, or (3) surgical specialties. KEY RESULTS: Patients with LEP were underrepresented in 26 of 28 specialties. Disparities were particularly large for the following: pulmonology (ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), orthopedics (ARR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), otolaryngology (ARR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59), and psychiatry (ARR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58). Among individuals with several specific common chronic conditions, LEP-EP disparities in visits to specialties in those conditions generally persisted. Disparities were larger for medical subspecialties (ARR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.46) and surgical specialties (ARR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50) than for primary care (ARR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LEP are underrepresented in most outpatient specialty practices, particularly medical subspecialties and surgical specialties. Our findings highlight the need to remove language barriers to physician services in order to ensure access to the full spectrum of outpatient specialty care for people with LEP.

Primary Care's Effects on Costs in the US Veterans Health Administration, 2016-2019: an Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing primary care is a promising strategy for improving the efficiency of health care. Previous studies of primary care's effects on health expenditures have mostly relied on ecological analyses comparing region-wide expenditures rather than spending for individual patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare overall medical expenditures for individual patients enrolled vs. those not enrolled in primary care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN: Cohort study with stratification for clinical risk and multivariable linear regression models adjusted for clinical and demographic confounders of expenditures. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 6,009,973 VHA patients in fiscal year (FY) 2019-5,410,034 enrolled with a primary care provider (PCP) and 599,939 without a PCP-and similar numbers in FYs 2016-2018. MAIN MEASURES: Total annual cost per patient to the VHA (including VHA payments to non-VHA providers) stratified by a composite health risk score previously shown to predict VHA expenditures, and multivariate models additionally adjusted for VHA regional differences, patients' demographic characteristics, non-VHA insurance coverage, and driving time to the nearest VHA facility. Sensitivity analyses explored different modeling strategies and risk adjusters, as well as the inclusion of expenditures by the Medicare program that covers virtually all elderly VHA patients for care not paid for by the VHA. KEY RESULTS: Within each health-risk decile, non-PCP patients had higher outpatient, inpatient, and total costs than those with a PCP. After adjustment for health risk and other factors, lack of a PCP was associated 27.4% higher VHA expenditures, $3274 per patient annually (p < .0001). Sensitivity analyses using different risk adjusters and including Medicare's spending for VHA patients yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In the VHA system, primary care is associated with substantial cost savings. Investments in primary care in other settings might also be cost-effective.

Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017.

Background: Before Canada's single-payer reform, its payment system, health costs, and number of health administrative personnel per capita resembled those of the United States. By 1999, administration accounted for 31% of U.S. health expenditures versus 16.7% in Canada. No recent comprehensive analyses of those costs are available. Objective: To quantify 2017 spending for administration by insurers and providers. Design: Analyses of government reports, accounting data that providers file with regulators, surveys of physicians, and census-collected data on employment in health care. Setting: United States and Canada. Measurements: Insurance overhead; administrative expenditures of hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices. Results: U.S. insurers and providers spent $812 billion on administration, amounting to $2497 per capita (34.2% of national health expenditures) versus $551 per capita (17.0%) in Canada: $844 versus $146 on insurers' overhead; $933 versus $196 for hospital administration; $255 versus $123 for nursing home, home care, and hospice administration; and $465 versus $87 for physicians' insurance-related costs. Of the 3.2-percentage point increase in administration's share of U.S. health expenditures since 1999, 2.4 percentage points was due to growth in private insurers' overhead, mostly because of high overhead in their Medicare and Medicaid managed-care plans. Limitations: Estimates exclude dentists, pharmacies, and some other providers; accounting categories for the 2 countries differ somewhat; and methodological changes probably resulted in an underestimate of administrative cost growth since 1999. Conclusion: The gap in health administrative spending between the United States and Canada is large and widening, and it apparently reflects the inefficiencies of the U.S. private insurance-based, multipayer system. The prices that U.S. medical providers charge incorporate a hidden surcharge to cover their costly administrative burden. Primary Funding Source: None.

Health Status and Health Care Utilization of US Adults Under Probation: 2015-2018.

Objectives. To compare the health and health care utilization of persons on and not on probation nationally.Methods. Using the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, a population-based sample of US adults, we compared physical, mental, and substance use disorders and the use of health services of persons (aged 18-49 years) on and not on probation using logistic regression models controlling for age, race/ethnicity, gender, poverty, and insurance status.Results. Those on probation were more likely to have a physical condition (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 1.4), mental illness (AOR = 2.4; 95% CI = 2.1, 2.8), or substance use disorder (AOR = 4.2; 95% CI = 3.8, 4.5). They were less likely to attend an outpatient visit (AOR = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.7, 0.9) but more likely to have an emergency department visit (AOR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.6, 2.0) or hospitalization (AOR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.5, 1.9).Conclusions. Persons on probation have an increased burden of disease and receive less outpatient care but more acute services than persons not on probation.Public Health Implications. Efforts to address the health needs of those with criminal justice involvement should include those on probation.

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.

Inequality and the health-care system in the USA.

Widening economic inequality in the USA has been accompanied by increasing disparities in health outcomes. The life expectancy of the wealthiest Americans now exceeds that of the poorest by 10-15 years. This report, part of a Series on health and inequality in the USA, focuses on how the health-care system, which could reduce income-based disparities in health, instead often exacerbates them. Other articles in this Series address population health inequalities, and the health effects of racism, mass incarceration, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Poor Americans have worse access to care than do wealthy Americans, partly because many remain uninsured despite coverage expansions since 2010 due to the ACA. For individuals with private insurance, rising premiums and cost sharing have undermined wage gains and driven many households into debt and even bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the share of health-care resources devoted to care of the wealthy has risen. Additional reforms that move forward, rather than backward, from the ACA are sorely needed to mitigate health and health-care inequalities and reduce the financial burdens of medical care borne by non-wealthy Americans.

The Effects of Household Medical Expenditures on Income Inequality in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of households' outlays for medical expenditures on income inequality and changes since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed data from the US Current Population Surveys for calendar years 2010 through 2014. We calculated the Gini index of income inequality before and after subtracting households' medical outlays (including insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs) from income, the financial burden of medical outlays for each income decile, and the number of individuals pushed below poverty by medical outlays. RESULTS: In 2014, the Gini index was 47.84, which rose to 49.21 after medical outlays were subtracted, indicating that medical outlays effectively redistributed about 1.37% of total income from poorer to richer individuals, a slightly smaller redistribution compared with the years before the ACA. Medical outlays reduced the median income of the poorest decile by 47.6% versus 2.7% for the wealthiest decile and pushed 7.013 million individuals into poverty. CONCLUSIONS: The way we finance medical care exacerbates income inequality and impoverishes millions of Americans. This regressive financing pattern improved minimally in the wake of the ACA.

The Relationship of Health Insurance and Mortality: Is Lack of Insurance Deadly?

About 28 million Americans are currently uninsured, and millions more could lose coverage under policy reforms proposed in Congress. At the same time, a growing number of policy leaders have called for going beyond the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to a single-payer national health insurance system that would cover every American. These policy debates lend particular salience to studies evaluating the health effects of insurance coverage. In 2002, an Institute of Medicine review concluded that lack of insurance increases mortality, but several relevant studies have appeared since that time. This article summarizes current evidence concerning the relationship of insurance and mortality. The evidence strengthens confidence in the Institute of Medicine's conclusion that health insurance saves lives: The odds of dying among the insured relative to the uninsured is 0.71 to 0.97.