Introduction: Reducing non-urgent emergency department (ED) visits has been targeted as a method to produce cost savings. To better describe these visits, we sought to compare resource utilization of ED visits characterized as non-urgent at triage to immediate, emergent, or urgent (IEU) visits.Methods: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Urgency of visits was categorized using the assigned 5-level triage acuity score. We analyzed resource utilization, including diagnostic testing, treatment, and hospitalization within each acuity categorization.Results: From 2006-2009, 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-11.2) of United States ED visits were categorized as non-urgent. Most (87.8% [95%CI, 86.3-89.2]) non-urgent visits had some diagnostic testing or treatment in the ED. Imaging was common in non-urgent visits (29.8% [95%CI, 27.8-31.8]), although not as frequent as for IEU visits (52.9% [95%CI, 51.6-54.2]). Similarly, procedures were performed less frequently for non-urgent (34.1% [95%CI, 31.8-36.4]) compared to IEU visits (56.3% [95%CI, 53.5-59.0]). Medication administration was similar between the 2 groups (80.6% [95%CI, 79.5-81.7] vs. 76.3% [95% CI, 74.7-77.8], respectively). The rate of hospital admission was 4.0% (95%CI, 3.3-4.8) vs. 19.8% (95%CI, 18.4-21.3) for IEU visits, with admission to a critical care setting for 0.5% of non-urgent visits (95%CI, 0.3-0.6) vs. 3.4% (95%CI, 3.1-3.8) of IEU visits.Conclusions: For most non-urgent ED visits, some diagnostic or therapeutic intervention was performed. Relatively low, but notable proportions of non-urgent ED visits were admitted to the hospital, sometimes to a critical care setting. These data call into question non-urgent ED visits being categorized as “unnecessary,” particularly in the setting of limited access to timely primary care for acute illness or injury. [West J Emerg Med.609-616.]

In 2007, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) created a novel payment program to create incentives for physician’s to focus on quality of care measures and report quality performance for the first time. Initially termed “The Physician Voluntary Reporting Program,” various Congressional actions, including the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (TRHCA) and Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) further strengthened and ensconced this program, eventually leading to the quality program termed today as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). As a result of passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the PQRS program has expanded to include both the “traditional PQRS” reporting program and the newer “Value Modifier” program (VM). For the first time, these programs were designed to include pay-for-performance incentives for all physicians providing care to Medicare beneficiaries and to measure the cost of care. The recent passage of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act in March of 2015 includes changes to these payment programs that will have an even more profound impact on emergency care providers. We describe the implications of these important federal policy changes for emergency physicians.

Objectives

Policymakers have increasingly focused on emergency department (ED) utilization for primary care-treatable conditions as a potentially avoidable source of rising health care costs. The objective was to determine the association of health insurance type and arrival time, as indicators of limited availability of primary care, with primary care-treatable classification of ED visits.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of a nationally representative sample of 241,167 ED visits from the 1997 to 2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS). Probabilities of ED visits being primary care-treatable were categorized based on the primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code. The association of health insurance type and arrival time was determined with the average probability of the primary diagnosis being primary care-treatable using multivariable linear regression.

Results

Compared to privately insured visits, Medicaid visits had a 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2% to 2.2%) and uninsured visits a 2.4% (95% CI = 1.9% to 3.0%) higher probability of primary care-treatable classification, while Medicare visits had a 1.4% (95% CI = 0.7% to 2.0%) lower probability during the overall study period. Compared to business hours, weekend visits had a 1.5% (95% CI = 1.0% to 2.0%) higher probability of being primary care-treatable during the overall study period. From 1997 to 2009, the overall adjusted probability of ED visits being primary care-treatable increased by 0.19% (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.28) per year. This probability increased at a rate of 0.52% per year for Medicare visits (95% CI = 0.38% to 0.65%), more than double that of Medicaid visits (0.25% per year, 95% CI = 0.13% to 0.37%). By contrast, there was no significant change from 1997 to 2009 in the average probability of ED visits being primary care-treatable by privately insured (0.05% per year, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.16) or uninsured (0.00% per year, 95% CI = -0.12 to 0.13) individuals.

Conclusions

These findings add to prior work that implicates insurance type and arrival time in the variation of primary care-treatable ED visits. Although primary care-treatable classification of ED visits was most associated with uninsured or Medicaid visits, this classification increased most rapidly among Medicare visits during the study period.