A national profile of the use of intensive care by medicare patients with cancer

Background. The broad picture of intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes and expenditures cannot be discerned from previous studies that were conducted at single hospitals and focused on narrow subsets of patients. Methods. This study provides a comprehensive national profile of ICU used by Medicare patients with cancer. The data source was the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file for fiscal year 1990, representing 100% of all hospital admissions that occurred within 723 ICD‐9‐CM codes and organized into 11 code groups. Using screening criteria, admissions were categorized as surgical (both major and minor procedures) or nonsurgical (no procedures) and with and without involvement of the ICU. The categories were compared using the following outcome variables: total hospital charges, ICU charges, ancillary charges, average length of stay, and in‐hospital mortality. Results. This study population accounted for nearly 800,000 admissions, of which 143,458 (18.1%) involved the use of the ICU. Actual ICU charges represented 4.9% of the $9.3 billion in total hospital charges. Intensive care unit use is associated positively with service intensity, and 73% of all the admissions involving the ICU were for major procedures. Only 2% involved no procedures. Admissions involving use of the ICU generate higher charges and longer lengths of stay than non‐ICU admissions, although the differences decrease with declining treatment intensity and resource use. In‐hospital mortality rates, for those cases that used the ICU, were 9.8% for major procedures, 21.2% for minor procedures, and 37.6% for cases involving no procedures. Conclusions. Contrary to the conclusions drawn from previous research, these findings suggest that patients who receive less intense service and use fewer hospital resources are more likely to die in the hospital than those who receive more care, with or without a stay in the ICU during the hospitalization. A global view of ICU use does not support the conclusion that a disproportionate share of special care resources is expended on futile care of the terminally ill or excessive monitoring of low risk patients, although these problems undoubtedly exist. Analysis of comprehensive national data regarding the use of intensive care provides a perspective that challenges some of the conclusions based on more limited studies that were conducted in single hospitals and focused on nonsurvivors or subsets of patients narrowly defined in other ways.