Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Oct;50(5):1589-605.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12286. Epub 2015 Feb 9.

Does Higher Spending Improve Survival Outcomes for Myocardial Infarction? Examining the Cost-Outcomes Relationship Using Time-Varying Covariates

Deborah Cohen  1 , Douglas G Manuel  2 , Peter Tugwell  3 , Claudia Sanmartin  4 , Tim Ramsay  5
Affiliations
Review

Does Higher Spending Improve Survival Outcomes for Myocardial Infarction? Examining the Cost-Outcomes Relationship Using Time-Varying Covariates

Deborah Cohen et al. Health Serv Res. 2015 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: Previous patient-level acute myocardial infarction (AMI) research has found higher hospital spending to be associated with improved survival; however, survivor-treatment selection bias traditionally has been overlooked. The purpose of this study was to examine the AMI cost-outcome relationship, taking into account this form of bias.

Data sources: Hospital Discharge Abstract data tracked costs for AMI hospitalizations. Ontario Vital Statistics data tracked patient mortality.

Study design: A standard Cox survival model was compared to an extended Cox model using hospital costs as a time-varying covariate to examine the impact of cost on 1-year survival in a cohort of 30,939 first-time AMI patients in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2010.

Principal findings: Higher patient-level AMI spending decreased the hazard of dying (Standard Model: log-cost hazard ratio: 0.513, 95 percent CI: 0.479-0.549; Extended Model: log-cost hazard ratio: 0.700, 95 percent CI: 0.645-0.758); however, the protective effect was overestimated by 62 percent when survivor-treatment bias was overlooked. In the extended model, a 10 percent increase in spending was associated with a 3.6 percent decrease in hazard of death.

Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that if survivor-treatment bias is overlooked, future research may materially overstate the protective effect of patient-level spending on outcomes.

Keywords: Myocardial infarction; cost-outcome relationships; survivor-treatment selection bias; time-varying covariates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Allison D. Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide. 2d Edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2010.
    1. Alter D, Stukel T. Newman A. The Proliferation of Cardiac Technology. Circulation. 2006;113:380–7. , and . “ .” . - PubMed
    1. Austin P, Mamdani M, van Walraven C. Tu J. Quantifying the Impact of Survivor Treatment Bias in Observational Studies. Journal of Evaluative Clinical Practice. 2006;12(6):601–12. , and . “ .” . - PubMed
    1. Ayanian J. Using Administrative Data to Address Healthcare Outcomes. European Heart Journal. 1999;20:1689–90. . “ .” . - PubMed
    1. Beyersmann J, Gastmeier P, Wolkewitz M. Schumacher M. An Easy Mathematical Proof Showed That Time-Dependent Bias Inevitably Leads to Biased Effect Estimation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiolgy. 2008;61:1216–21. , and . “ .” . - PubMed

Publication types