World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 981–987 | Cite as

Understanding Disparities in Surgical Outcomes for Medicaid Beneficiaries

  • Jake Claflin
  • Justin B. Dimick
  • Darrell A. Campbell
  • Michael J. Englesbe
  • Kyle H. SheetzEmail author
Original Scientific Report



Few studies have evaluated whether outcome disparities between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries are driven by the hospital at which the patient receives care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the hospital on surgical outcomes in Medicaid beneficiaries.


We identified 139,566 non-elderly Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, or gynecological surgery between 2012 and 2017 using a statewide clinical registry in Michigan. We calculated risk-adjusted rates of complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and post-acute care utilization using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for patient and procedural factors. We then evaluated whether, and to what extent, the hospital influenced outcome disparities between Medicaid and privately insured beneficiaries.


Risk-adjusted rates for all outcomes were higher in Medicaid beneficiaries. For example, overall post-discharge ED visit rates were 14.3% (95% CI 13.7% to 14.9%) for Medicaid compared to 7.5% (95% CI 7.1% to 7.9%, P < 0.01) for private insurance beneficiaries. Hospital factors explained 3.9% of the observed difference in complication rates between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries. In contrast, hospital factors explained a greater proportion of the disparities in readmissions (30.6%), ED visits (33.0%), and post-acute care utilization (16.1%). Results were similar when restricting the study population to elective cases only.


Hospital factors account for a significant proportion of the disparities in post-discharge resource utilization between Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries. Policies aiming to improve the quality and equity of surgical care for Medicaid beneficiaries should focus on the post-discharge period.



Support for this manuscript from Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation and the Association for Academic Surgery Resident Research Grant (KHS).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to report.


  1. 1.
    Armenia SJ, Pentakota SR, Merchant AM (2017) Socioeconomic factors and mortality in emergency general surgery: trends over a 20-year period. J Surg Res 212:178–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley CJ, Dahman B, Bear HD (2012) Insurance and inpatient care: differences in length of stay and costs between surgically treated cancer patients. Cancer 118:5084–5091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LaPar DJ, Bhamidipati CM, Mery CM et al (2010) Primary payer status affects mortality for major surgical operations. Ann Surg 252:544–550 (discussion 550–541) PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sabesan VJ, Petersen-Fitts G, Lombardo D et al (2017) Medicaid payer status is linked to increased rates of complications after treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:948–953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shahan CP, Bell T, Paulus E et al (2015) Emergency general surgery outcomes at safety net hospitals. J Surg Res 196:113–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waits SA, Reames BN, Sheetz KH et al (2014) Anticipating the effects of medicaid expansion on surgical care. JAMA Surg 149:745–747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayanian JZ (2013) Michigan’s approach to Medicaid expansion and reform. N Engl J Med 369:1773–1775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birkmeyer JD, Gust C, Dimick JB et al (2012) Hospital quality and the cost of inpatient surgery in the United States. Ann Surg 255:1–5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ, Finks JF et al (2014) Composite measures for profiling hospitals on bariatric surgery performance. JAMA Surg 149:10–16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hechenbleikner EM, Zheng C, Lawrence S et al (2017) Do hospital factors impact readmissions and mortality after colorectal resections at minority-serving hospitals? Surgery 161:846–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torres H, Poorman E, Tadepalli U et al (2017) Coverage and access for Americans with chronic disease under the affordable care act: a quasi-experimental study. Ann Internal Med 166:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han X, Nguyen BT, Drope J et al (2015) Health-related outcomes among the poor: medicaid expansion vs. non-expansion states. PLoS ONE 10:e0144429CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holzmacher JL, Townsend K, Seavey C, et al (2017) Association of expanded medicaid coverage with hospital length of stay after injury. JAMA Surg 152:960–966CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell DA Jr, Englesbe MJ, Kubus JJ et al (2010) Accelerating the pace of surgical quality improvement: the power of hospital collaboration. Arch Surg 145:985–991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campbell DA Jr, Kubus JJ, Henke PK et al (2009) The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative: a legacy of Shukri Khuri. Am J Surg 198:S49–S55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheetz KH, Guy K, Allison JH et al (2014) Improving the care of elderly adults undergoing surgery in Michigan. J Am Geriatr Soc 62:352–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheetz KH, Waits SA, Krell RW et al (2013) Improving mortality following emergent surgery in older patients requires focus on complication rescue. Ann Surg 258:614–617 (discussion 617–618) PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bynum JP, Fisher ES, Song Y et al (2010) Measuring racial disparities in the quality of ambulatory diabetes care. Med Care 48:1057–1063CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Charles EJ, Johnston LE, Herbert MA et al (2017) Impact of medicaid expansion on cardiac surgery volume and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 104:1251–1258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shrime MG, Alkire BC, Grimes C et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness in global surgery: pearls, pitfalls, and a checklist. World J Surg 41:1401–1413. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coetzee WC, Apffelstaedt JP, Zeeman T et al (2018) Disparities in breast cancer: private patients have better outcomes than public patients. World J Surg 42:727–735. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jake Claflin
    • 1
  • Justin B. Dimick
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Darrell A. Campbell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael J. Englesbe
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kyle H. Sheetz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Surgical Quality CollaborativeAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Center for Healthcare Outcomes and PolicyAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations