4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Are patients at veterans affairs medical centers sicker?: A comparative analysis of health status and medical resource use

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 160, 期 21, 页码 3252-3257

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.21.3252

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Veterans Affairs (VA) health system has been criticized for bring inefficient based on comparisons of VA care with non-VA care. Whether such comparisons are biased by differences between the VA patient population and the non-VA patient population is not known. Our objective is to determine if VA patients are different from non-VA patients in terms of health status and medical resource use. Method: We analyzed 128099 records from the National Health Interview Survey for the years 1993 and 1994. We compared the VA patient population with the general patient population for self report on health status, number of medical conditions, number of outpatient physician visits, number of hospital admissions, and number of hospital days each year. Results: The VA patient population had poorer health status (odds ratio [OR], 14.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-20.2), more medical conditions (OR, 14; 95% CI, 10.5-18.7), and higher medical resource use compared with the general patient population (OR, 3.7 for 3 or more physician visits per year; OR 5.4 for 3 or more hospital admissions per year; OR, 7.7 for 21 or more days spent in a hospital per year). However, after controlling for health and sociodemographic differences, VA patients had similar resource use compared with the general patient population. Conclusion: Large differences in sociodemographic status, health status, and subsequent resource use exist between the VA and the general patient population. Therefore, comparisons of VA care with non-VA care need to take these differences into account. Furthermore, health care planning and resource allocation within the VA should not be based on data extrapolated from non-VA patient populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据