RESOURCE UTILIZATION IN TREATMENT OF ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION - STAFF-MODEL HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION VERSUS FEE-FOR-SERVICE HOSPITALS

Objectives. This study sought to compare the use of invasive procedures and length of stay for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction to health maintenance organization (HMO) and fee-for-service hospitals. Background. The HMOs have reduced costs compared with fee-for service systems by reducing discretionary admissions and decreasing hospital length of stay. It has not been established whether staff model HMO hospitals also reduce the rate of procedure utilization. Methods. Using data from a retrospective cohort, we performed univariate and multivariate comparisons of the use of cardiac procedures, length of stay and hospital mortality in 998 patients admitted to two staff-model HMO hospitals and 7,036 patients admitted to 13 fee-for service hospitals between January 1988 and December 1992. Results. The odds of undergoing coronary angiography were 1.5 times as great for patients admitted to fee-for-service hospitals than for those admitted to HMO hospitals (odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 1.9). Similarly, the odds of undergoing coronary revascularization were two times greater in fee-for service hospitals (odds ratio 2.0, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.5). However, higher utilization was strongly associated with the greater avail ability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities in fee-for-service hospitals. The length of hospital stay, by contrast, was similar to 1 day shorter in the fee-for service cohort (7.3 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.05). Conclusions. Physicians in staff model HMO hospitals use fewer invasive procedures and longer lengths of stay to treat patients with acute myocardial infarction than physicians in fee-for service hospitals. This finding, however, appears to be associated with the lack of on site catheterization facilities at HMO hospitals.