The Insurance Coverage Paradox – Characterizing Outcomes among Dual-Eligible Hemorrhagic Stroke Patients

Socioeconomic factors, such as insurance status, have been shown to affect outcomes for patients following emergency injuries. Dual-eligible beneficiaries, receiving both Medicare and Medicaid, constitute an especially vulnerable population. There is limited data addressing whether dual-eligible beneficiaries with hemorrhagic stroke display unique characteristics and outcomes compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10-years of National Inpatient Sample data. Using ICD-9-CM codes, we identified adult patients with known insurance status who were emergently hospitalized for intracranial hemorrhage; epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, and intracerebral hemorrhages were included. Patient characteristics including whether they underwent surgical intervention were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Primary clinical outcomes of interest included mortality (in-hospital), complications (any), and favorable discharge (home/home with services). Among 410,621 patients, dual-eligible (6.8%) patients were on average older (mean age = 73yrs) compared to Medicaid (46yrs), private insurance (67yrs), or no-charge (47yrs) patients. Caucasian race was highest among Medicare patients (83%) while African-American race was highest among Medicaid (22%). Among all patients, 5.3% underwent operative intervention. Dual-eligibles had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared to no-charge (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.61, 95% CI = [1.04 – 2.49]), but no significant difference between Medicare and Medicaid although dual-eligibles. Dual-eligibles had significantly increased odds of complications compared to Medicaid (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI = [1.11 – 1.37]) and privately insured patients (aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = [1.11 – 1.28]), both p