Variation in access to pediatric surgical care among coexisting public and private providers: inguinal hernia as a model
2017; King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre; Volume: 37; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5144/0256-4947.2017.290
ISSN0975-4466
AutoresAyman Al‐Jazaeri, Lama Alshwairikh, Manar A. Aljebreen, Nourah AlSwaidan, Tarfah Al-Obaidan, Abdulrahman Alzahem,
Tópico(s)Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Resumooriginal articleVariation in access to pediatric surgical care among coexisting public and private providers: inguinal hernia as a model Ayman Al-Jazaeri, Lama Alshwairikh, Manar A. Aljebreen, Nourah AlSwaidan, Tarfah Al-Obaidan, and Abdulrahman Alzahem Ayman Al-Jazaeri Correspondence: Dr. Ayman Al-Jazaeri, Division of Pediatrc Surgery, Department of Surgery, King Saud University, Riyadh 1355, Saudi Arabia, E-mail Address: [email protected], ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6853-0935 , Lama Alshwairikh , Manar A. Aljebreen , Nourah AlSwaidan , Tarfah Al-Obaidan , and Abdulrahman Alzahem Published Online::3 Aug 2017https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2017.290SectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutAbstractBACKGROUND: Faced with growing healthcare demand, the Saudi government is increasingly relying on privatization as a tool to improve patient access to care. Variation in children's access to surgical care between public (PB) and private providers (PV) has not been previously analyzed.OBJECTIVES: To compare access to pediatric surgical services between two coexisting PB and PV.DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study.SETTINGS: A major teaching hospital and the largest PV group in Saudi Arabia.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The outcomes for children who underwent inguinal herniotomy (IH) between May 2010 and December 2014 at both providers were with IH serving as the model. Data collected included patient demographics, insurance coverage, referral pattern and access parameters including time-to-surgery (TTS), surgery wait time (SWT) and duration of symptoms (DOS).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): TTS, SWT and DOS.RESULTS: Of 574 IH cases, 56 cases of in-hospital referrals were excluded leaving 290 PB and 228 PV cases. PV patients were younger (12.0 vs 16.4 months, P=.043) and more likely to be male (81.6% vs 72.8%, P=.019), expatriates (18% vs 3.4%, P<.001) and insured (47.4% vs 0%, P<.001). The emergency department was more frequently the source for PB referrals (35.2% vs 12.7%, P<.001) while most PV patients were self-referred (72.8% vs 16.7%, P<.001). Access parameters were remarkably better at PV: TTS (21 vs 66 days, P<.001), SWT (4 vs 31 days, P<.001) and DOS (33 vs 114 days, P<.001).CONCLUSION: When coexisting, PV offers significantly better access to pediatric surgical services compared to PB. Diverting public funds to expand children's access to PV can be a valid choice to improve access to care in case when outcomes with the two providers are similar.LIMITATIONS: Although it is the first and largest comparison in the pediatric population, the sample may not represent the whole population since it is confined to a single selected surgical condition.IntroductionAccess to care ideally entails the provision of the right health service at the right time in the right place.1,2 Poor access is associated with longer waiting times for elective surgical procedures and consequently a negative perception of care and raised level of anxiety.3 The rising demand on healthcare services globally is outpacing the public sector's capacity, promoting private provider growth as an effective alternative to improve access and meet the population demand.4–6 We have recently demonstrated that privatization can significantly improve the access in adult elective surgical care;7 however, we do not know if private providers can similarly offer better access to pediatric surgical care compared with public providers.We selected inguinal herniotomy (IH) as one of the most frequent surgical interventions during infancy and childhood.8 Inguinal hernia affects 3.5% to 5% of all full-term infants and 9% to 11% of premature babies.9 IH is access sensitive, as delays in repair are associated with a high risk of incarceration, which can reach up to 30% in infants.10 Moreover, delay in IH particularly for premature babies is linked to more difficult repairs, higher risks of incarceration and the risk of testicular atrophy.11–13Prompt and proper management necessitates adequate access to care which is considered a major measure of healthcare quality in general.14,15 Our group and others have demonstrated that variation in a child's access to pediatric surgical care can significantly influence both the processes and outcomes in managing various surgical conditions including Hirschsprung disease,16 gastroschisis,17 appendicitis18 and hernias.19Previous comparisons of pediatric surgical care access used different geographic populations or different healthcare systems. However, comparing coexisting different providers that compete on the same population pool could be a more valuable tool in assessing the impact of healthcare privatization in a defined geographic area. In this study we compare access to IH surgery between a private-for-profit provider (PV) and a public provider (PB) serving the same geographic population.PATIENTS AND METHODSProvidersWe've selected two major PB and PV serving the same geographic population in Riyadh, the largest city in Saudi Arabia with an estimated population of around six million, 35% of whom are children.20King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH) is a PB and among the largest university affiliated hospitals in Saudi Arabia and one of the largest contributors to scientific medical research in the country.21,22 On the private side, we selected three PVs that are part of the Dr. Suliman Al Habib Medical Group (HMG). HMG is the country's largest network of hospitals operating more than 10 medical facilities in the Middle East and Africa.23 Both providers shared similar aggregate bed capacity during the study period;24,25 however, they differ in access. KKUH as a PB has an open access policy to all Saudi nationals, affiliated university staff and students, while HMG access is restricted to insured patients or those who can afford out-of-pocket medical expenses. The project was approved by both institutes' ethical committees and assigned a protocol number (E-14-1368).Patient cohortsRecords of all children under the age of 14 who underwent IH by both providers between May 2010 and December 2014 were reviewed. We excluded in-hospital cases referred directly from neonatal intensive care, those diagnosed during an admission for other medical conditions and those who underwent herniotomy concurrently with another primary surgical procedure, due to the expected significant confounders in their referral patterns compared to the general population.Assessed outcomesThree primary outcomes were used in our model to assess patients access to care: time-to-surgery (TTS, calculated from the onset of hernia detection by the child's guardian to the date of pediatric surgeon's visit; surgery wait time (SWT), the period the patient waited from the date of pediatric surgeon's visit to the date of surgery; and duration of symptoms (DOS), the period from the onset of symptoms to the date of surgery. Correlated variables included patient age, gender, hernia sides, nationality, and type of coverage. Other access confounders were also documented including source of referral to pediatric surgeon, whether patients were followed up for other medical reasons and history of incarceration before surgery.Statistical methodsAge, TTS, SWT, and DOS were expressed as medians and interquartile ranges then compared using a Mann-Whitney test as they were not normally distributed. Other categorical variables were summarized within each provider as frequencies (percentages), and compared using a chi-squared test. Differences in TTS, SWT and DOS were also explored using linear regression. As these variables were positively skewed and the assumptions of normality of residuals were violated for linear regression models using the raw duration data, the variables were log transformed prior to modelling. The models were used to determine whether significant differences in access time exist between the PB and PV after controlling for potential confounders (age, sex, nationality, referred by, history of incarceration and followed up for other reason). All tests were two-sided and P values of <.05 were considered statistically significant. Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).RESULTSDemographicsOf 574 records of IHs reviewed at both providers during the study period, we excluded 56 cases from both groups for the reasons listed in Table 1. The demographics of the remaining 290 PB and 228 PV cases are shown in Table 2. Private care was more likely in the treatment of slightly younger children, with a higher proportion of boys and expatriates, while hernia side distribution was similar. The predicted insurance coverage difference is also shown; however, there were limited (1%) out-of-pocket cases treated by a small private center affiliated with the public provider; 52.6% of the PV patients paid out-of-pocket, 82.5% of whom were boys.Table 1 Excluded cases.PublicPrivateDirect NICU referral2316Other in-hospital referral57Combined major procedures05Table 2 Patient demographics.Public (n=290)Private (n=228)P valueMedian age (Interquartile)16.4 months (3.6–49.9)12.0 months (2.4–46.3).043Sex Boys211 (72.8%)186 (81.6%).019 Girls79 (27.2%)42 (18.4%)Hernia sides Right142 (49.0%)106 (46.5%).215 Left106 (36.6%)98 (43.0%) Bilateral42 (14.5%)24 (10.5%)Nationality Saudi280 (96.6%)187 (82.0%)<.001 Expatriate10 (3.4%)41 (18.0%)Coverage Public287 (99.0%)0<.001 Insurance0108 (47.4%) Out of pocket3* (1.0%)120 (52.6%)*Limited private center at public hospitalReferral patternThere was significant variation in referral patterns between the two providers (Table 3). The majority of the PV cases were self-referred to pediatric surgeons (72.8%), compared to only 17.2% for PB. Other physicians, mainly pediatricians and primary care physicians were the main sources of referral among PB cases (48%), of whom 17.2% were already followed-up for other illnesses. Meanwhile, the emergency department (ED) was a significantly more valuable access pathway for patients seeking care at PB as 35.2% of them presented and were referred from ED despite only 5.6% presenting with incarcerated hernias; however, there was no difference in the rate of incarceration between the two groups.Table 3 Access characteristics.Referred byPublic (n=290)Private (n=228)Emergency department99 (35.2%)29 (12.7%)<.001Other physicians135 (48.0%)33 (14.5%)Self-referral47 (16.7%)166 (72.8%)History of incarceration16 (5.6%)21 (9.3%).104Followed for other reasons50 (17.2%)7 (3.1%)<.001Access timesPV scores were widely better in all the major access to care indices (Table 4). The median time the patients waited to be evaluated by pediatric surgeons was 21 days for PV patients compared to 66 days for those accessing PB (P<.001). Similarly, wait time for surgery after diagnosis was much shorter for PV (4 days vs 31 days) than PB with narrower variability in the PV range (2–10 days) (P<.001). Overall, PV was able to cut the duration of the patient's symptoms to 33 days from 114 days reported by PB (P<.001).Table 4 Linear regression models comparing access time for public and private providers.Public (n=290)Median (interquartile)Private (n=228)Median (interquartile)Adjusted*P valueTTS (days)66 (28–181)21 (4–90)<.001SWT (days)31 (9–77)4 (2–10)<.001DOS (days)114 (56–297)33 (12–127)<.001*Adjusted P value estimated using linear regression models for log (days) which adjusted for age, sex, nationality, referred by, history of incarceration and followed for other reason.DOS: duration of symptom, the period from onset of symptoms to the date of surgery, TTS: time to surgeon, the period from the onset of hernia detection to the pediatric surgeon visit. SWT: surgery wait time, the period from the date of pediatric surgeon visit to the date of surgery.DISCUSSIONIn healthcare systems where publically subsidized healthcare is not well funded, PVs offer alternative access to care. Even in better funded social healthcare systems PVs offer a substantial proportion of services. For instance, in Britain, a country with an exceptionally high proportion of public spending, 13% of the healthcare spending in 2006 was in the private sector.26 About 60% of what was spent on health in sub-Saharan Africa in 2005 was in the private sector,27 and in India about 80% of care is provided by the private sector.28 In South Asia, 80% of children in the lowest income quintile who have acute respiratory conditions are treated by PV.29 In developing countries, the structure of care, including buildings, equipment, materials, supplies, and drug availability, tends to be superior among PVs.30–33 Access to care is generally better in terms of shorter waiting time and easier access,7,34,35 resulting in greater patient satisfaction.36 Despite that, it seems that many patients are still more confident in the public providers in these countries despite inferior access.26,32,35,36In mixed healthcare systems, access to PV, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, is strongly related to adequacy of insurance coverage. Accumulated evidence highlights the impact of disparity of care and outcomes between the insured and uninsured patients, particularly in ischemic heart diseases37,38 and cancers.39 In fact, insurance-related limitation of access to care in these systems is associated with worse outcomes in hernia. In reviewing 147 665 hernia encounters, London et al concluded that hernia-related complications and mortality were significantly higher among the uninsured.40 In a population-based US national study, Todd et al observed higher morbidity and mortality rates among children who were uninsured or publically insured compared to those who were privately insured.41 Similarly, those uninsured children were more likely to present with perforated appendicitis.42In our study, although we did not analyze the outcomes, we have demonstrated that access to pediatric surgical care can vary and is significantly better when offered by the private sector. Children who could access the PV were able to visit the appropriate surgical specialist three times earlier than those who accessed the PB. Many variables could have influenced the pre-visit access including the patient's level of education and the providers distance; however, once they visit the surgeon, after the diagnosis was made and the treatment planned, PV had better in-hospital efficiency by cutting surgery wait times by almost eight times compared to PB. Similar variation was noticed among the adult population.7 Moreover, a Canadian group that compared almost exclusively publicly insured infant access to IH at their hospital with an American counterpart that serves mixed publicly and privately insured children, found that American infants had earlier repair and therefore were four times less likely to present with incarceration.43As expected, faced with difficulty in access, PB patients tend to resort to the ED for non-emergent cases such as non-incarcerated hernias unlike those with access to PV who can arrange earlier surgeon visits directly or through referral from another physician. Similar phenomena has been reported by others.43 This tendency is well described in the US healthcare system as privately insured patients who have better access to primary care are less likely to visit the ED compared to publicly insured adults44,45 and children.41,46 The resulting overcrowding of the ED by elective cases is believed to raise a barrier for more urgent cases and could threaten patient safety and pose a public health problem.47 Unlike the PV elastic capacity that would expand based on affordable demand, governmental funding and internal services efficiency limit PB capacity to provide specialized services such as pediatric surgery. Consequently, to improve efficiency PB places primary care as a gatekeeper against self-referral to specialized services and in the meantime PV offers direct access through self-referral as a competitive advantage, which explains the high frequency of self-referrals. Similar phenomena could explain the higher percentage of children who are referred while being treated by other pediatric services for different illnesses at the PB. While access to PB is open to all cases, there is a tendency for academic centers to focus on treating more complex cases with a higher likelihood of better outcomes48,49 while PV centers would more predictably focus on the more profitable ambulatory cases.50 Both providers reported similar incarceration rates despite the large difference in wait times, which is inconsistent with what has been reported by others.12,13 This can be explained by the coexistence of the two providers serving and even competing on the same population, which is quite unusual. Consequently, realizing the difficulty in accessing PB, patients with incarcerated IH tend to seek urgent care at the PV that offers them an earlier definitive management. This may explain the unexpectedly similar incarceration rates despite the significant variation in access.As predicted, due to earlier access, PV patients were younger and more often male. We cannot accurately explain the higher proportion of boys; it could be attributed either to society's male preference or to their larger and worrying inguinoscrotal hernia appearance, which pushes the uninsured parents to seek care earlier at the PV despite the incurred expenses, as 82.5% of those who paid out-of-pocket at PV were boys. Another noticeable difference is the higher proportion of non-Saudi infants treated in the PV which has been attributed to the local workforce structure resulting in a higher proportion of privately insured non-Saudis in addition to the PB restricted eligibility to Saudi nationals.Comparing outcomes was not the objective of this study, but we did not expect large variation due to the non-complex nature of the procedure. In addition, due to its sensitivity, PV are often resistant to voluntary outcomes reporting. Generally, the differences in outcomes between PV and PB are inconsistent and tend to vary across healthcare systems. A meta-analysis involving 38 million American patients showed higher risk-adjusted death rates among patients receiving care at private for-profit hospitals compared to not-for profit hospitals.51 The same group performed another meta-analysis of over 500 000 hemodialysis patients, which similarly revealed a higher risk-adjusted mortality rate at for-profit facilities.52 In a meta-analysis comparing outcomes in nursing homes, non-profts provided superior quality compared to for-profits in terms of fewer pressure ulcers, less use of restraints and better quality staffing.53 On the other hand, in eastern Europe, privately run hemodialysis units reportedly have lower mortality rates compared to the public units.54 In China, an analysis of 362 government and private hospitals found no differences in mortality when hospital characteristics and case-mix measures were controlled.55 An Australian group reviewed 19 000 patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction and found lower mortality and unplanned re-admission of those treated by the PV compared to PB, including public academic hospitals.56 Most studies favoring the outcomes of private not-for-profit providers originate from the US healthcare system where these providers are relatively well funded and better managed.Due to the significant obstacles in accessing data at different provider sites in addition to limited resources, we could not perform an ideal population-based study; however, based on limited previous data this comparison could offer a valuable insight on the impact of privatization on the access to routine pediatric care.In conclusion, access to pediatric surgical services can be significantly improved by healthcare privatization if it is matched by insurance coverage expansion. We do not recommend a particular type of provider, but in light of healthcare budget constraints, the coexistence of complementary private providers offers an additional valuable healthcare resource. The treatment outcomes should be closely monitored as access can be easily improved at the expense of quality. Both public and private sectors have different strengths and weaknesses, and a judicious blending of the two can produce an optimal system. Moreover, the coexistence of two systems can be a valuable tool for benchmarking to identify areas of potential improvements in each system.Conflict of interestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.ARTICLE REFERENCES:1. Rogers A, Flowers J, Pencheon D. "Improving access needs a whole systems approach. And will be important in averting crises in the millennium winter" . BMJ. 1999; 319(7214):866-7. Google Scholar2. Gulliford M, Figueroa-Munoz J, Morgan M, Hughes D, Gibson B, Beech R, et al. "What does 'access to healthcare' mean?" J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002; 7(3):186-8. Google Scholar3. Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DRM, Knol DL, Bijnen AB, va der Wal G. "Waiting for elective general surgery: impact on health related quality of life and psychosocial consequences" . BMC Public Health. 2007; 7:164. Google Scholar4. Akinci F. "Privatization in healthcare: Theoretical Considerations and Real Outcomes" . Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research. 2002; 3(2):62-86. Google Scholar5. Maarse H. "The privatization of healthcare in Europe: an eight-country analysis" . J Health Polit Policy Law. 2006; 31(5):981-1014. Google Scholar6. Yip W, Hsiao W. "Harnessing the privatisation of China's fragmented health-care delivery" . Lancet. 2014; 384(9945):805-18. Google Scholar7. Al-Jazaeri A, Ghomraoui F, Al-Muhanna W, Saleem A, Jokhadar H, Aljurf T. "The Impact of Healthcare Privatization on Access to Surgical Care: Cholecystectomy as a Model" . World J Surg. 2016;1-8. Google Scholar8. Glick PL, Boulanger SC. "Inguinal hernias and hydroceles" . In: O'Neill JA, Rowe MI, Grosfeld JC, et al.Pediatric surgery, 5th ed.St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2007;1172-92. Google Scholar9. Kliegman . Inguinal Hernia, iAJ, Oldham KT: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, ed 18. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2007; Ch 343. Google Scholar10. Lau ST, Lee HY, Caty MG. "Current management of hernias and hydroceles" . Semin Pediatr Surg. 2007; 16(1):50-7. Google Scholar11. Puri P, Guiney EJ, O'Donnell B. "Inguinal hernia in infants: the fate of the testis following incarceration" . J Pediatr Surg. 1984; 19:44-46. Google Scholar12. Lautz TB, Raval MV, Reynolds M. "Does timing matter? A national perspective on the risk of incarceration in premature neonates with inguinal hernia" . J Pediatr. 2011; 158(4):573-7. Google Scholar13. Zamakhshary M, To T, Guan J, To T, Guan J, Langer J. "Risk of incarceration of inguinal hernia among infants and young children awaiting elective surgery" . CMAJ. 2008; 179:1001-1005. Google Scholar14. Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. "Defining quality of care" . Soc Sci Med. 2000; 51(11):1611-25. Google Scholar15. Mayer EK, Chow A, Vale JA, Athanasiou T. "Appraising the quality of care in surgery" . World J Surg. 2009; 33(8):1584-93. Google Scholar16. Al-Jazaeri A, Al-Shanafey S, Zamakhshary M, Al-Jarbou W, Hajr E, Breakeit M, et al. "The impact of variation in access to care on the management of Hirschsprung disease" . J Pediatr Surg. 2012; 47(5):952-5. Google Scholar17. Ford K, Poenaru D, Moulot O, et al. "Gastroschisis: Bellwether for neonatal surgery capacity in low resource settings?" J Pediatr Surg. 2016; 51(8):1262-7. Google Scholar18. To T, Langer JC. "Does access to care affect outcomes of appendicitis in children? A population-based cohort study" . BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10:250. Google Scholar19. Gawad N, Davies DA, Langer JC. "Determinants of wait time for infant inguinal hernia repair in a Canadian children's hospital" . J Pediatr Surg. 2014; 49(5):766-9. Google Scholar20. General statistic agency. Population geographic distributionAccessed Nov 2, 2016from http://www.stats.gov.sa/sites/default/files/ar-riyadh_0.pdf. Google Scholar21. College of Medicine. King Saud University. Accessed at Feb 7, 2016at http://medicine.ksu.edu.sa/en/node/1393. Google Scholar22. Al-Bishri J. "Evaluation of biomedical research in Saudi Arabia" . Saudi Med J. 2013; 34(9):954-9. Google Scholar23. ZAWYA 2014. Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health joins hands with GE, Dr. Sulaiman Al-Habib Medical Group and Asala Holding to launch two Women's Health Screening Clinics in Riyadh mallsOct292014Accessed Feb 7, 2014at https://www.zawya.com/story/Saudi_Arabian_Ministry_of_Health_joins_hands_with_GE_Dr_Sulaiman_AlHabib_Medical_Group_and_Asala_Holding_to_launch_two_Womens_Health_Screening_Clinics_in_Riyadh_malls-ZAWYA20141029104009/. Google Scholar24. Dr. Sulaiman Al Habib Medical Group. Accessed at Feb 7, 2016from http://www.hmg.com.sa/ar/Pages/home.aspx. Google Scholar25. Ministry of Health (MOH). Health statistical Year Book. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2014Accessed at Feb 3, 2016from http://www.moh.gov.sa/en/Ministry/Statistics/book/Documents/Statistical-Book-for-the-Year-1435.pdf. Google Scholar26. Schneider H, Palmer N. "Getting to the truth? Researching user views of primary healthcare" . Health Policy Plan. 2002; 17(1):32-41. Google Scholar27. Sekhri N, Savedoff W, Preker A. Harnessing private health insurance: Trends and regulatory challenges Private voluntary health insurance in development: Friend or foeThe World Bank; 2006. In. editor. Available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&entityID=000020953_20070103142627. Google Scholar28. Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation. Paris: Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation; 2007Health statistics. Google Scholar29. International Finance Corporation. The business of health in Africa. 2007World Bank GroupAccessed at Oct 21, 2008frome: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/healthinafrica.nsf/Content/FullReport. Google Scholar30. Deressa W, Ali A, Hailemariam D. "Malaria-related health-seeking behaviour and challenges for care providers in rural Ethiopia: implications for control" . J Biosoc Sci. 2008; 40(1):115-35. Google Scholar31. Gilson L, Alilio M, Heggenhougen K. "Community satisfaction with primary healthcare services: an evaluation undertaken in the Morogoro region of Tanzania" . Soc Sci Med. 1994; 39(6):767-80. Google Scholar32. Lindelow M, Serneels P. "The performance of health workers in Ethiopia: results from qualitative research" . Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(9):2225-35. Google Scholar33. Russell S. "Treatment-seeking behaviour in urban Sri Lanka: trusting the state, trusting private providers" . Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61(7):1396-407. Google Scholar34. Paphassarang C, Philavong K, Boupha B, Blas E. "Equity, privatization and cost recovery in urban healthcare: the case of Lao PDR" . Health Policy Plan. 2002; 17(Suppl):72-84. Google Scholar35. Turan JM, Bulut A, Nalbant H, Ortayli N, Akalin AAK. "The quality of hospital-based antenatal care in Istanbul" . Stud Fam Plann. 2006; 37(1):49-60. Google Scholar36. Lim MK, Yang H, Zhang T, Feng W, Zhou Z. "Public perceptions of private healthcare in socialist China" . Health Aff (Millwood). 2004; 23(6):222-34. Google Scholar37. Ng DK, Brotman DJ, Lau B, Young JH. "Insurance status, not race, is associated with mortality after an acute cardiovascular event in Maryland" . J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(10):1368-76. Google Scholar38. Parikh PB, Gruberg L, Jeremias A, Chen JJ, Naidu SS, Shlofmitz RA, et al. "Association of health insurance status with presentation and outcomes of coronary artery disease among nonelderly adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention" . Am Heart J. 2011; 162(3):512-7. Google Scholar39. Halpern MT, Ward EM, Pavluck AL, Schrag NM, Bian J, Chen AY. "Association of insurance status and ethnicity with cancer stage at diagnosis for 12 cancer sites: a retrospective analysis" . Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(3):222-31. Google Scholar40. London JA, Utter GH, Sena MJ, et al. "Lack of Insurance is Associated With Increased Risk for Hernia Complications" . Ann Surg. 2009; 250(2):331-7. Google Scholar41. Todd J, Armon C, Griggs A, Poole S, Berman S. "Increased rates of morbidity, mortality, and charges for hospitalized children with public or no health insurance as compared with children with private insurance in Colorado and the United States" . Pediatrics. 2006; 118(2):577-85. Google Scholar42. Smink DS, Fishman SJ, Kleinman K, Finkelstein JA. "Effects of race, insurance status, and hospital volume on perforated appendicitis in children" . Pediatrics. 2005; 115(4):920-5. Google Scholar43. Chen LE, Zamakhshary M, Foglia RP, Coplen DE, Langer JC. "Impact of wait time on outcome for inguinal hernia repair in infants" . Pediatr Surg Int. 2009; 25(3):223-7. Google Scholar44. Capp R, Rooks SP, Wiler JL, Zane RD, Ginde AA. "National study of health insurance type and reasons for emergency department use" . J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29(4):621-7. Google Scholar45. Cheung PT, Wiler JL, Lowe RA, Ginde AA. "National study of barriers to timely primary care and emergency department utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries" . Ann Emerg Med. 2012; 60(1):4-10.e2. Google Scholar46. Shatin D, Levin R, Ireys HT, Haller V. "healthcare utilization by children with chronic illnesses: a comparison of medicaid and employer-insured managed care" . Pediatrics. 1998; 102(4):E44. Google Scholar47. Trzeciak S, Rivers EP. "Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health" . Emerg Med J. 2003; 20(5):402-5. Google Scholar48. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ. "Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery" . JAMA. 1998; 280(20):1747-51. Google Scholar49. Birkmeyer JD, Finlayson EV, Birkmeyer CM. "Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative" . Surgery. 2001; 130(3):415-22. Google Scholar50. Plotzke MR, Courtemanche C. "Does procedure profitability impact whether an outpatient surgery is performed at an ambulatory surgery center or hospital?" Health Econ. 2011; 20(7):817-30. Google Scholar51. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, Lacchetti C, et al. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing mortality rates of private for-profit and private not-for-profit hospitals" . CMAJ. 2002; 166(11):1399-406. Google Scholar52. Devereaux PJ, Schunemann HJ, Ravindran N. "Comparison of mortality between private for-profit and private not-for-profit hemodialysis centers: a systematic review and meta-analysis" . JAMA. 2002; 288(19):2449-57. Google Scholar53. Comondore VR, Devereaux PJ, Zhou Q, Stone SB, Busse JW, Ravindran NC, et al. "Quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit nursing homes: systematic review and meta-analysis" . BMJ. 2009; 339:b2732. Google Scholar54. Stefan G, Podgoreanu E, Mircescu G. "Hemodialysis system privatization and patient survival: a report from a large registry Eastern Europe cohort" . Ren Fail. 2015; 37(9):1481-5. Google Scholar55. Eggleston K, Lu M, Li C, Wang J, Zhang J, Quan H. "Comparing public and private hospitals in China: evidence from Guangdong" . BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10:76. Google Scholar56. Jensen PH, Webster E, Witt J. "Hospital type and patient outcomes: an empirical examination using AMI readmission and mortality records" . Health Econ. 2009; 18(12):1440-60. Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 37, Issue 4July-August 2017 Metrics History Published online3 August 2017 AcknowledgmentWe acknowledge the support of The College of Medicine Research Center at King Saud University, Riyadh.InformationCopyright © 2017, Annals of Saudi MedicineThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.PDF download
Referência(s)