RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Does the ownership of the admitting hospital make a difference? Outcomes and process of care of Medicare beneficiaries admitted with acute myocardial infarction
Sloan, FA., Trogdon, J., Curtis, LH., & Schulman, KA. (2003). Does the ownership of the admitting hospital make a difference? Outcomes and process of care of Medicare beneficiaries admitted with acute myocardial infarction. Medical Care, 41(10), 1193-1205.
BACKGROUND: Concerns have been expressed about quality of for-profit hospitals and their use of expensive technologies. OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in mortality after admission for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and in the use of low- and high-tech services for AMI among for-profit, public, and private nonprofit hospitals. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Cooperative Cardiovascular Project data for 129,092 Medicare patients admitted for AMI from 1994 to 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality at 30 days and 1 year postadmission; use of aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers at discharge, thrombolytic therapy, catheterization, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) compared by ownership. RESULTS: Mortality rates at 30 days and at 1 year at for-profit hospitals were no different from those at public and private nonprofit hospitals. Without patient illness variables, nonprofit hospitals had lower mortality rates at 30 days (relative risk [RR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.99) and at 1 year (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) than did for-profit hospitals, but there was no difference in mortality between public and for-profit hospitals. Beneficiaries at nonprofit hospitals were more likely to receive aspirin (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05) and ACE inhibitors (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) than at for-profit hospitals, but had lower rates of PTCA (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and CABG (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Although outcomes did not vary by ownership, for-profit hospitals were more likely to use expensive, high-tech procedures. This pattern appears to be the result of for-profit hospitals' propensity to locate in areas with demand for high-tech care for AMI