Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 2000 Mar;34(7):1535–1553.

Variation in the use of alternative levels of hospital care for newborns in a managed care organization.

D W Roblin 1, D K Richardson 1, E Thomas 1, F Fitzgerald 1, R Veintimilla 1, P Hulac 1, G Bemis 1, L Leon 1
PMCID: PMC1975663  PMID: 10737452

Abstract

OBJECTIVE(S): To assess the extent to which variation in the use of neonatal intensive care resources in a managed care organization is a consequence of variation in neonatal health risks and/or variation in the organization and delivery of medical care to newborns. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected on a cohort of all births from four sites in Kaiser Permanente by retrospective medical chart abstraction of the birth admission. Likelihood of admission into a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is estimated by logistic regression. Durations of NICU stays and of hospital stay following birth are estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The likelihood of admission into NICU and the duration of both NICU care and hospital stay are proportional to the degree of illness and complexity of diagnosis. Adjusting for variation in health risks across sites, however, does not fully account for observed variation in NICU admission rates or for length of hospital stay. One site has a distinct pattern of high rates of NICU admissions; another site has a distinct pattern of low rates of NICU admission but long durations of hospital stay for full-term newborns following NICU admission as well as for all newborns managed in normal care nurseries. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variations exist among sites in the risk-adjusted likelihood of NICU admission and in durations of NICU stay and hospital stay. Hospital and NICU affiliation (Kaiser Permanente versus contract) or affiliation of the neonatologists (Kaiser Permanente versus contract) could not explain the variation in use of alternative levels of hospital care. The best explanation for these variations in neonatal resource use appears to be the extent to which neonatology and pediatric practices differ in their policies with respect to the management of newborns of minimal to moderate illness.

Full text

PDF
1535

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brenner W. E., Edelman D. A., Hendricks C. H. A standard of fetal growth for the United States of America. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976 Nov 1;126(5):555–564. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(76)90748-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Campbell D. M. Why do physicians in neonatal care units differ in their admission thresholds? Soc Sci Med. 1984;18(5):365–374. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90054-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Escobar G. J., Fischer A., Li D. K., Kremers R., Armstrong M. A. Score for neonatal acute physiology: validation in three Kaiser Permanente neonatal intensive care units. Pediatrics. 1995 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):918–922. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Field D., Hodges S., Mason E., Burton P. Survival and place of treatment after premature delivery. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Apr;66(4 Spec No):408–411. doi: 10.1136/adc.66.4_spec_no.408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenfield S., Nelson E. C., Zubkoff M., Manning W., Rogers W., Kravitz R. L., Keller A., Tarlov A. R., Ware J. E., Jr Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA. 1992 Mar 25;267(12):1624–1630. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Horbar J. D., Lucey J. F. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care technologies. Future Child. 1995 Spring;5(1):139–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Knaus W. A., Draper E. A., Wagner D. P., Zimmerman J. E. An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. Ann Intern Med. 1986 Mar;104(3):410–418. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-104-3-410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mallick R., Strosberg M., Lambrinos J., Groeger J. S. The intensive care unit medical director as manager. Impact on performance. Med Care. 1995 Jun;33(6):611–624. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199506000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Perlstein P. H., Atherton H. D., Donovan E. F., Richardson D. K., Kotagal U. R. Physician variations and the ancillary costs of neonatal intensive care. Health Serv Res. 1997 Aug;32(3):299–311. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Phibbs C. S., Bronstein J. M., Buxton E., Phibbs R. H. The effects of patient volume and level of care at the hospital of birth on neonatal mortality. JAMA. 1996 Oct 2;276(13):1054–1059. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pollack M. M., Katz R. W., Ruttimann U. E., Getson P. R. Improving the outcome and efficiency of intensive care: the impact of an intensivist. Crit Care Med. 1988 Jan;16(1):11–17. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198801000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rapoport J., Gehlbach S., Lemeshow S., Teres D. Resource utilization among intensive care patients. Managed care vs traditional insurance. Arch Intern Med. 1992 Nov;152(11):2207–2212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Richardson D. K., Gray J. E., McCormick M. C., Workman K., Goldmann D. A. Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology: a physiologic severity index for neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics. 1993 Mar;91(3):617–623. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Williams R. L., Chen P. M. Identifying the sources of the recent decline in perinatal mortality rates in California. N Engl J Med. 1982 Jan 28;306(4):207–214. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198201283060404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zupancic J. A., Richardson D. K. Characterization of the triage process in neonatal intensive care. Pediatrics. 1998 Dec;102(6):1432–1436. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.6.1432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES