National Study of Health Insurance Type and Reasons for Emergency Department Use
The rates of emergency department (ED) utilization vary substantially by type of health insurance, but the association between health insurance type and patient-reported reasons for seeking ED care is unknown.
We evaluated the association between health insurance type and self-perceived acuity or access issues among individuals discharged from the ED.
This was a cross-sectional analysis of the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Adults whose last ED visit did not result in hospitalization (n = 4,606) were asked structured questions about reasons for seeking ED care. We classified responses as 1) perceived need for immediate evaluation (acuity issues), or 2) barriers to accessing outpatient services (access issues).
We analyzed survey-weighted data using multivariable logistic regression models to test the association between health insurance type and reasons for ED visits, while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.
Overall, 65.0 % (95 % CI 63.0–66.9) of adults reported ≥ 1 acuity issue and 78.9 % (95 % CI 77.3–80.5) reported ≥ 1 access issue. Among those who reported no acuity issue leading to the most recent ED visit, 84.2 % reported ≥ 1 access issue. Relative to those with private insurance, adults with Medicaid (OR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.79–1.40) and those with Medicare (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.66–1.47) were similarly likely to seek ED care due to an acuity issue. Adults with Medicaid (OR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.06–2.13) and Medicaid + Medicare (dual eligible) (OR 1.94; 95 % CI 1.18–3.19) were more likely than those with private insurance to seek ED care for access issues.
Variability in reasons for seeking ED care among discharged patients by health insurance type may be driven more by lack of access to alternate care, rather than by differences in patient-perceived acuity. Policymakers should focus on increasing access to alternate sites of care, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as strategies to increase care coordination that involve ED patients and providers.
- 9.Sommers AS, Boukus ER, Carrier E. Dispelling myths about emergency department use: majority of Medicaid visits are for urgent or more serious symptoms. Res Brief. 2012(23):1–10, 11–13.Google Scholar
- 10.Holahan J, Carroll C, Dorn S. The cost and coverage implications of the ACA Medicaid expansion: national and state-by-state analysis. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2012. http://www.kff.org/medicaid/8384.cfm. Accessed November 7, 2013.
- 11.Centers for Disease and Control Prevention. National Health Interview Survey. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/quest_data_related_1997_forward.htm. Accessed November 7, 2013.
- 12.Gindi RM, Cohen RA, Kirzinger WK. Emergency room use among adults aged 18–64: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January–June 2011. 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/emergency_room_use_january-june_2011.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013.
- 13.HRSA. Efforts to divert non-urgent ER use to alternate providers, focusing on providing better care at lower costs. http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2011/05/t20110511a.html. Accessed November 7, 2013.
- 16.Billings J, Parikh N, Mijanovich T. Emergency department use in New York City: a substitute for primary care? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2000(433):1–5.Google Scholar
- 17.Billings J, Parikh N, Mijanovich T. Emergency department use in New York City: a survey of Bronx patients. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2000(435):1–5.Google Scholar
- 25.ED navigators steer patients to appropriate providers. Hosp Case Manag. 2012;20(3):43–44.Google Scholar
- 26.ED navigators prevent unnecessary admissions. Hosp Case Manag. 2012;20(2):22, 27.Google Scholar
- 27.Brenner J. Camden Coalition Program. 2012; http://www.camdenhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Charges-Hotspots.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013.