4.2 Article

Hospital Payer and Racial/Ethnic Mix at Private Academic Medical Centers in Boston and New York City

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 460-476

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0020731416689549

Keywords

disparities; access to care; hospitals; health reform; segregation; Medicaid; uninsured; race

Funding

  1. New York State Health Foundation [15-03638]
  2. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
  3. Rx Foundation
  4. NIH/NHLBI [U01HL105432]
  5. Margaret Mahoney Fellowship at the New York Academy of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are widely perceived as providing the highest-quality medical care. To investigate disparities in access to such care, we studied the racial/ethnic and payer mixes at private AMCs of New York City (NYC) and Boston, two cities where these prestigious institutions play a dominant role in the health care system. We used individual-level inpatient discharge data for acute care hospitals to examine the degree of hospital racial/ethnic and insurance segregation in both cities using the Index of Dissimilarity, together with recent changes in patterns of care in NYC. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, black patients in NYC were two to three times less likely than whites, and uninsured patients approximately five times less likely than privately insured patients, to be discharged from AMCs. In Boston, minorities were overrepresented at AMCs relative to other hospitals. NYC hospitals were more segregated overall according to race/ethnicity and insurance than Boston hospitals, and insurance segregation became more pronounced in NYC after the Affordable Care Act. Although health reform improved access to insurance, access to AMCs remains limited for disadvantaged populations, which may undermine the quality of care available to these groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available