Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34705854›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Healthcare spending in U.S. emergency departments by health condition, 2006-2016.

Kirstin Woody Scott, Angela Liu, Carina Chen, Alexander S Kaldjian, Amber K Sabbatini, Herbert C Duber, Joseph L Dieleman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Good Farewell? Positive Exits from Federal Housing Assistance and Lower Acute Healthcare Utilization.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirstin Woody ScottDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5415-6479
Angela LiuInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Carina ChenInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Alexander S KaldjianInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Amber K SabbatiniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Herbert C DuberInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Joseph L DielemanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
University of Washington · USHarvard University · US

Funding

University of Washington Center for Demography and Economics of Aging-OverallP30AG047845 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MURRAY, CHRISTOPHER J.L. · 2014 to 2019
$3.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG047845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare spending in the emergency department (ED) setting has received intense focus from policymakers in the United States (U.S.). Relatively few studies have systematically evaluated ED spending over time or disaggregated ED spending by policy-relevant groups, including health condition, age, sex, and payer to inform these discussions. This study's objective is to estimate ED spending trends in the U.S. from 2006 to 2016, by age, sex, payer, and across 154 health conditions and assess ED spending per visit over time. METHODS AND

findingsThis observational study utilized the National Emergency Department Sample, a nationally representative sample of hospital-based ED visits in the U.S. to measure healthcare spending for ED care. All spending estimates were adjusted for inflation and presented in 2016 U.S. Dollars. Overall ED spending was $79.2 billion (CI, $79.2 billion-$79.2 billion) in 2006 and grew to $136.6 billion (CI, $136.6 billion-$136.6 billion) in 2016, representing a population-adjusted annualized rate of change of 4.4% (CI, 4.4%-4.5%) as compared to total healthcare spending (1.4% [CI, 1.4%-1.4%]) during that same ten-year period. The percentage of U.S. health spending attributable to the ED has increased from 3.9% (CI, 3.9%-3.9%) in 2006 to 5.0% (CI, 5.0%-5.0%) in 2016. Nearly equal parts of ED spending in 2016 was paid by private payers (49.3% [CI, 49.3%-49.3%]) and public payers (46.9% [CI, 46.9%-46.9%]), with the remainder attributable to out-of-pocket spending (3.9% [CI, 3.9%-3.9%]). In terms of key groups, the majority of ED spending was allocated among females (versus males) and treat-and-release patients (versus those hospitalized); those between age 20-44 accounted for a plurality of ED spending. Road injuries, falls, and urinary diseases witnessed the highest levels of ED spending, accounting for 14.1% (CI, 13.1%-15.1%) of total ED spending in 2016. ED spending per visit also increased over time from $660.0 (CI, $655.1-$665.2) in 2006 to $943.2 (CI, $934.3-$951.6) in 2016, or at an annualized rate of 3.4% (CI, 3.3%-3.4%).

conclusionsThough ED spending accounts for a relatively small portion of total health system spending in the U.S., ED spending is sizable and growing. Understanding which diseases are driving this spending is helpful for informing value-based reforms that can impact overall health care costs.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsDiseaseEmergency Service, HospitalHumansTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34705854
PMCPMC8550368
OpenAlexW3209459379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.