Estimating health care delivery system value for each US state and testing key associations.
comparative health systems
health care costs
state health policies
Journal
Health services research
ISSN: 1475-6773
Titre abrégé: Health Serv Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0053006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
revised:
20
04
2021
received:
16
09
2020
accepted:
25
04
2021
pubmed:
25
5
2021
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
24
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To estimate health care systems' value in treating major illnesses for each US state and identify system characteristics associated with value. Annual condition-specific death and incidence estimates for each US state from the Global Burden Disease 2019 Study and annual health care spending per person for each state from the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Using non-linear meta-stochastic frontier analysis, mortality incidence ratios for 136 major treatable illnesses were regressed separately on per capita health care spending and key covariates such as age, obesity, smoking, and educational attainment. State- and year-specific inefficiency estimates were extracted for each health condition and combined to create a single estimate of health care delivery system value for each US state for each year, 1991-2014. The association between changes in health care value and changes in 23 key health care system characteristics and state policies was measured. Not applicable. US state with relatively high spending per person or relatively poor health-outcomes were shown to have low health care delivery system value. New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and New York attained the highest value scores in 2014 (81 [95% uncertainty interval 72-88], 80 [72-87], 80 [71-86], 77 [69-84], and 77 [66-85], respectively), after controlling for health care spending, age, obesity, smoking, physical activity, race, and educational attainment. Greater market concentration of hospitals and of insurers were associated with worse health care value (p-value ranging from <0.01 to 0.02). Higher hospital geographic density and use were also associated with worse health care value (p-value ranging from 0.03 to 0.05). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage HMOs was associated with better value, as was more generous Medicaid income eligibility (p-value 0.04 and 0.01). Substantial variation in the value of health care exists across states. Key health system characteristics such as market concentration and provider density were associated with value.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34028028
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13676
pmc: PMC9108083
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
557-567Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Health Services Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):109-12
pubmed: 19494209
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
BMJ. 2003 Nov 15;327(7424):1129
pubmed: 14615335
Lancet. 2018 Jun 2;391(10136):2236-2271
pubmed: 29893224
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Sep 1;36(9):1530-1538
pubmed: 28874478
Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun;57(3):557-567
pubmed: 34028028
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
pubmed: 21142528
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 2;382(1):51-59
pubmed: 31893515
Econ J (London). 2011 Aug;121(554):F228-F260
pubmed: 25821239
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jul;30(7):1265-71
pubmed: 21734199
Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Mar-Apr;26(2):w195-203
pubmed: 17264100
Harv Bus Rev. 2004 Jun;82(6):64-76, 136
pubmed: 15202288
Health Care Manag Sci. 2003 Nov;6(4):203-18
pubmed: 14686627