ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Differences in High- and Low-Value Cardiovascular Testing by Health Insurance Provider.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of Chinese diagnosis-related group system with low-value coronary revascularisation: an interrupted time series analysis.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- 2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2024Review
- Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2023Review
- Patient Symptoms and Stress Testing After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2022Review
- Differences in High- and Low-Value Cardiovascular Testing by Health Insurance Provider.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Quality of care incentives and reimbursements for cardiovascular testing differ between insurance providers. We hypothesized that there are differences in the use of guideline-concordant testing between Medicaid versus commercial insurance patients <65 years, and between Medicare Advantage versus Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years. Methods and Results Using data from the Colorado All-Payer Claims Database from 2015 to 2018, we identified patients eligible to receive a high-value test recommended by guidelines: assessment of left ventricular function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or incident heart failure, or a low-value test that provides minimal patient benefit: stress testing prior to low-risk surgery or routine stress testing within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Among 145 616 eligible patients, 37% had fee-for-service Medicare, 18% Medicare Advantage, 22% Medicaid, and 23% commercial insurance. Using multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive high-value testing for acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [0.73-0.98];
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.