Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study

Tom Briffa, C.J. Hammett, D.B. Cross, A.I. Macisaac, J.M. Rankin, N. Board, B. Carr, K.K. Hyun, J. French, D.B. Brieger, D.P. Chew

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© AHHA 2015. Objective The aim of the present study was to explore the association of health insurance status on the provision of guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia. Methods Consecutive hospitalisations of suspected ACS from 14 to 27 May 2012 enrolled in the Snapshot study of Australian and New Zealand patients were evaluated. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of patient risk and insurance status with the receipt of care. Results In all, 3391 patients with suspected ACS from 247 hospitals (23 private) were enrolled in the present study. One-third of patients declared private insurance coverage; of these, 27.9% (304/1088) presented to private facilities. Compared with public patients, privately insured patients were more likely to undergo in-patient echocardiography and receive early angiography; furthermore, in those with a discharge diagnosis of ACS, there was a higher rate of revascularisation (P
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)379-386
JournalAustralian Health Review
Volume39
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this