Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39748225›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2025

Is frequent emergency department use a complement or substitute for other healthcare services? Evidence from South Carolina Medicaid enrollees.

Theodoros V Giannouchos, Ronald G Pirrallo, Brad Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Theodoros V GiannouchosDepartment of Health Policy & Organization, School of Public Health, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1574-6767
Ronald G PirralloSchool of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina, USA.
Brad WrightDepartment of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2674-4951

Funding

Health Sciences Center at Prisma Health, Transformative Research SEED Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare healthcare services utilization across the healthcare system between frequent and non-frequent emergency department (ED) users among Medicaid enrollees in South Carolina. STUDY SETTING AND

designWe conducted a retrospective, longitudinal study of individuals with at least one ED visit in 2017 in South Carolina and identified their healthcare services visits over 730 days (2 years) after their first ED visit. We classified individuals based on intensity of ED use: superfrequent (≥9 ED visits/year), frequent (4-8 ED visits/year), and non-frequent ED users (≤3 visits/year). We estimated differences between the three groups of ED users and non-ED hospital and office-based visits using multivariable two-part regression models. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used statewide Medicaid claims from January 2017 to December 2019 for ED users aged 18-64 years with continuous Medicaid enrollment. We analyzed data on all frequent and superfrequent users and selected a 4:1 random sample among all non-frequent users (~half of all non-frequent users). PRINCIPAL

findingsThe study included 52,845 ED users, of whom 42,764 were non-frequent, 7677 frequent, and 2404 superfrequent users. Within 2 years from the date of their first ED visit, superfrequent ED users averaged 38.3 ED visits, frequent ED users 10.9 ED visits, and non-frequent ED users 2.6 ED visits (p < 0.001). Compared with non-frequent users, frequent and superfrequent ED users had more comorbidities and chronic conditions on average (1.6 vs. 3.5 vs. 6.4, p < 0.001). Both frequent and superfrequent users had more hospital visits beyond the ED overall (marginal effects: 0.23, 95% CI 0.18-0.27; 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.50), and more outpatient office visits overall (marginal effects: 4.39, 95% CI 2.52-6.27; 9.23, 95% CI 5.66-12.81), including primary care and most specialists' visits, compared with non-frequent users.

conclusionsFrequent ED users utilized non-ED hospital and outpatient office-based healthcare services significantly more than non-frequent ED users. These findings can guide tailored interventions using data across the healthcare system to efficiently coordinate care, contain costs, and improve health outcomes for these individuals.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalMedicaidPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSouth CarolinaUnited StatesYoung Adultcomplementary careEmergency departmentfrequent usehealthcare services use

Identifiers

PMID39748225
PMCPMC12120528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.