ArticleAcute and critical care2022
Association between the National Health Insurance coverage benefit extension policy and clinical outcomes of ventilated patients: a retrospective study.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the association between the Korean National Health Insurance coverage benefit extension policy and clinical outcomes of patients who were ventilated owing to various respiratory diseases.
methodsData from 515 patients (male, 69.7%; mean age, 69.8±12.1 years; in-hospital mortality rate, 28.3%) who were hospitalized in a respiratory intensive care unit were retrospectively analyzed over 5 years.
resultsOf total enrolled patients, 356 (69.1%) had one benefit items under this policy during their hospital stay. They had significantly higher medical expenditure (total: median, 23,683 vs. 12,742 U.S. dollars [USD], P<0.001), out-of-pocket (median, 5,932 vs. 4,081 USD; P<0.001), and a lower percentage of out-of-pocket medical expenditure relative to total medical expenditure (median, 26.0% vs. 32.2%; P<0.001). Patients without benefit items associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.794; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.980-3.941; P<0.001). In analysis of patients with benefit items, patients with three items ("cancer," "tuberculosis," and "disability") had significantly lower out-of-pocket medical expenditure (3,441 vs. 6,517 USD, P<0.001), and a lower percentage of out-of-pocket medical expenditure relative to total medical expenditure (17.2% vs. 27.7%, P<0.001). They were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (HR, 3.904; 95% CI, 2.533-6.039; P<0.001).
conclusionsOur study showed patients with benefit items had more medical resources and associated improved in-hospital survival. Patients with the aforementioned three benefit items had lower out-of-pocket medical expenditure due to the implementation of this policy, but higher in-hospital mortality.
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.