Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21689096›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2011

Comparing patient outcomes across payer types: implications for using hospital discharge records to assess quality.

Daniel D Maeng, Grant R Martsolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel D MaengGeisinger Center for Health Research, 100 N. Academy Avenue M.C. 44-00, Danville, PA 17822, USA. ddmaeng@geisinger.edu
Grant R Martsolf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explain observed differences in patient outcomes across payer types using hospital discharge records. Specifically, we address two mechanisms: hospital-payer matching versus unobserved patient heterogeneity. DATA SOURCE: Florida's hospital discharge records (1996-2000) of major surgery patients with private health insurance between the ages of 18 and 65, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) market penetration data, hospital systems data, and the Area Resource File. STUDY

designThe dependent variable is occurrence of one or more in-hospital complications as identified by the Complication Screening Program. The key independent variable is patients' primary-payer type (HMO, Preferred Provider Organization, and fee-for-service). We estimate five different logistic regression models, each representing a different assumption about the underlying factors that confound the causal relationship between the payer type and the likelihood of experiencing complications. PRINCIPAL FINDING: We find that the observed differences in complication rates across payer types are largely driven by unobserved differences in patient health, even after adjusting for case mix using available data elements in the discharge records.

conclusionBecause of the limitations inherent to hospital discharge records, making quality comparisons in terms of patient outcomes is challenging. As such, any efforts to assess quality in such a manner must be carried out cautiously.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeEconomic CompetitionFloridaHealth Maintenance OrganizationsHealth Services ResearchHospital RecordsHumansInsurance, HealthLogistic ModelsPatient DischargePatient SafetyPreferred Provider OrganizationsQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareRisk Adjustment

Identifiers

PMID21689096
PMCPMC3393018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.