Revisiting the economic efficiencies of observation units.

BACKGROUND Recent studies cast doubt about the economic efficiency of observation units (OUs). OBJECTIVE We aimed to reexamine the cost savings of OUs compared with inpatient care. METHODS Claims for 15,851 patients who were admitted to inpatient or OUs between January 2009 and December 2012 following emergency room (ER) visits for chest pain were retrospectively examined. The two groups were compared for total cost of episode, length of stay (LOS), and utilization rates of diagnostic procedures, including standard exercise and echocardiography stress tests, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and computed tomography (CT) chest scans. Total costs of care and LOS were adjusted for age, gender, risk scores, and comorbidities using quantile regression. RESULTS More than 37% of the sample was admitted to inpatient units (n = 5,890) vs 62.7% to OUs (n = 9,961). Patients admitted to inpatient units had more comorbidities and longer LOS during their ER visit (median 1.5 adjusted days; 10th percentile = 1, 90th percentile = 3) vs. median 21 adjusted hours for OUs (20, 23). The adjusted median cost of OUs was $5,411 ($4,652, $7,157) vs. $6,946 for inpatient admission ($5,978, $18,683). The estimated adjusted cost saving of OUs was $1,535 (95% CI = $1,206, $1,411) compared with inpatient admission. About 37% of patients admitted to OUs stayed longer than 24 hours. Compared with patients admitted to inpatient units, patients in OUs also received more MPI (35.8% vs. 31.5%), CT scans (13.2% vs. 10.4%), standard exercise test (45.6% vs. 33.8%) and echocardiography stress test (8% vs. 3.4%). CONCLUSION Despite the increased proportion of patients exceeding the 24-hour LOS and the increased utilization of advanced imaging procedures, OUs are still less costly compared with inpatient admission.

[1]  W. Chan,et al.  One‐Year Outcomes Associated With Using Observation Services in Triaging Patients With Nonspecific Chest Pain , 2014, Clinical cardiology.

[2]  Mary L. Ehlenbach,et al.  Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with "observation status" at an academic medical center. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[3]  Jeremiah D. Schuur,et al.  Observation care--high-value care or a cost-shifting loophole? , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  W. Hundley,et al.  Stress CMR reduces revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[5]  C. Baugh,et al.  Making greater use of dedicated hospital observation units for many short-stay patients could save $3.1 billion a year. , 2012, Health affairs.

[6]  V. Mor,et al.  Sharp rise in Medicare enrollees being held in hospitals for observation raises concerns about causes and consequences. , 2012, Health affairs.

[7]  C. Baugh,et al.  Correction: Use of Observation Care in US Emergency Departments, 2001 to 2008 , 2012, PLoS ONE.

[8]  L. Baker,et al.  Association of coronary CT angiography or stress testing with subsequent utilization and spending among Medicare beneficiaries. , 2011, JAMA.

[9]  C. Baugh,et al.  Use of Observation Care in US Emergency Departments, 2001 to 2008 , 2011, PloS one.

[10]  M. Farkouh,et al.  Outcomes in patients with chest pain evaluated in a chest pain unit: the chest pain evaluation in the emergency room study cohort. , 2011, American heart journal.

[11]  Julius Cuong Pham,et al.  Use of advanced radiology during visits to US emergency departments for injury-related conditions, 1998-2007. , 2010, JAMA.

[12]  L. McCaig,et al.  Emergency department visits for chest pain and abdominal pain: United States, 1999-2008. , 2010, NCHS data brief.

[13]  V. Romano,et al.  Initial experience with a chest pain protocol using 320-slice volume MDCT , 2009, European Radiology.

[14]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of coronary MDCT in the triage of patients with acute chest pain. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Udo Hoffmann,et al.  Use of multidetector computed tomography for the assessment of acute chest pain: a consensus statement of the North American Society of Cardiac Imaging and the European Society of Cardiac Radiology , 2007, The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.

[16]  B. Lewis,et al.  Usefulness of 64-Slice Cardiac Computed Tomographic Angiography for Diagnosing Acute Coronary Syndromes and Predicting Clinical Outcome in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain of Uncertain Origin , 2007, Circulation.

[17]  I. Ovhed,et al.  BMC Public Health BioMed Central Research article Validating the Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System of the elderly , 2006 .

[18]  S. Dixon,et al.  Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  A R Zinsmeister,et al.  A clinical trial of a chest-pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  R. Roberts,et al.  Costs of an emergency department-based accelerated diagnostic protocol vs hospitalization in patients with chest pain: a randomized controlled trial. , 1997, JAMA.

[21]  L. Graff,et al.  Impact on the care of the emergency department chest pain patient from the chest pain evaluation registry (CHEPER) study. , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  E. Cook,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of a new short-stay unit to "rule out" acute myocardial infarction in low risk patients. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  N. Sekhri.  Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics: characteristics and outcomes of patients from six centres , 2009 .

[24]  Marcelo Coca-Perraillon.  Local and Global Optimal Propensity Score Matching , 2007 .

[25]  M. Reiser,et al.  ECG-gated 64-MDCT angiography in the differential diagnosis of acute chest pain. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.