Table IV.

Logistic and Poisson regression results: Disposition, visit rate, and HFU status

Predictor	Estimate	95% Confidence Interval	Significance [p-value]
Disposition from the EDa	Odds Ratio
Adult	0.68	[0.62, 0.75]	< 0.01
Private Insurance	0.90	[0.82, 0.99]	0.02
Uninsured	0.37	[0.32, 0.43]	< 0.01
Distance to care (mi.)	0.91	[0.87, 0.94]	< 0.01
Urbanicity	0.33	[0.18, 0.58]	< 0.01
Severe Disease	13.26	[11.38, 15.45]	< 0.01
Male	1.07	[0.99, 1.15]	0.06
Black	1.15	[0.99, 1.33]	0.07
Hispanic	1.43	[1.19, 1.71]	< 0.01
Rate of ED visitsb	Incidence Rate Ratio
Adult	2.32	[2.22, 2.43]	< 0.01
Private Insurance	0.59	[0.56, 0.62]	< 0.01
Uninsured	0.63	[0.59, 0.67]	< 0.01
Distance to care (mi.)	1.04	[1.02, 1.06]	< 0.01
Urbanicity	1.34	[1.01, 1.78]	0.04
Severe Disease	1.65	[1.60, 1.71]	< 0.01
Male	1.02	[0.99, 1.06]	0.16
Black	0.74	[0.71, 0.77]	< 0.01
Hispanic	1.46	[1.38, 1.54]	< 0.01
High-frequency utilization statusc	Odds Ratio
Adult	7.91	[3.95, 15.85]	< 0.01
Private Insurance	0.19	[0.10, 0.37]	< 0.01
Uninsured	0.44	[0.23, 0.86]	0.02
Distance to care (mi.)	1.17	[0.98, 1.39]	0.08
Urbanicity	1.50	[0.91, 24.68]	0.78
Severe Disease	2.51	[1.79, 3.53]	< 0.01
Male	0.99	[0.71, 1.40]	0.96
Black	0.79	[0.51, 1.24]	< 0.01
Hispanic	2.26	[1.33, 3.86]	< 0.01

^aLogistic regression: likelihood of inpatient admission

^bPoisson regression

^cLogistic regression: likelihood of being in the top tier of ED users