MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 136: Impact of Massachusetts Health Reform on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Use of Inpatient Cardiovascular Surgeries

2012· article· en· W2535088195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amresh Hanchate, Xin Zheng, Karen E. Lasser, Danny McCormick, Meredith D'Amore, Alok Kapoor, Nancy R. Kressin

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupPopulationCohortReferralDemographyHealth careEmergency medicineCensusQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The 2006 Massachusetts (MA) health reform increased insurance coverage to near-universal levels, but its impact on access to care or disparities in access is unclear. We examined post-reform change in racial/ethnic differences in use of two cardiovascular (CV) procedures, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), for which disparities in use have been noted in numerous past studies. As use of these procedures is sensitive to outpatient referral, impact of reform on procedure use can serve as a marker for impact on access to care. We hypothesized that reform will result in increased use of procedures, and that the increase in use will be greater among minorities. We contrasted the results with those for two comparable orthopedic procedures (total knee replacement [TKR] and total hip replacement [THR]). METHODS Using the comprehensive MA Hospital Inpatient Data of all discharges in all non-Federal hospitals from 1/1/2004 to 9/30/2009, we obtained state-level counts of individual procedures stratified into 30 cohorts by age (40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59 & 60-64), sex and race/ethnicity (Whites, Blacks and Hispanics) for each quarter. To separate the impact of MA reform from secular changes, we used corresponding data from New York (SPARCS Inpatient Data) to capture changes unrelated to MA reform. To convert procedure counts into rates (# procedures/10,000 population), we obtained Census data to create a measure of population at risk for each cohort. Treating a quarter as the unit of time, the study period comprised of 10 pre-reform, 6 transition and 7 post-reform quarters. Applying a difference-in-difference specification, we used segmented time series Poisson regression models to estimate the impact of MA reform on the procedure rates for Blacks and Hispanics relative to those for Whites. RESULTS There was a secular decrease in MA in the use of PTCA and CABG (-8.0% per year for each) throughout the study period. In MA, compared to Whites, pre-reform rates of both procedures were lower among Blacks (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]: PTCA=0.79 & CABG=0.73; all p values < 0.001) but similar among Hispanics. For the post-reform period, the procedure rate in MA was unchanged for PTCA but was 11% higher (95%CI=[2%, 20%]) for CABG. MA reform was associated with 11% higher post-reform rates of PTCA+CABG (combined) use among Hispanics, albeit with marginal significance (95% CI=[-1%, 25%]), than that among Whites; no significant impact was noted for Blacks (2%; 95% CI=[-10%, 16%]). Orthopedic procedures experienced secular increases in use. Reform was associated with increased use of both procedures among Blacks (16%, 95% CI=[3%, 31%]) and Hispanics (42%, 95% CI=[20%, 69%]) than that among Whites. CONCLUSIONS MA health reform may have increased the use of CV and orthopedic procedures among minorities. While orthopedic procedure use increased among both Blacks and Hispanics, the increase for CV procedures was smaller in magnitude and limited to Hispanics. Impact of reform on use may vary with procedure type due to differences in pent-up demand and acuity of conditions treated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207