Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence demonstrates disparities among patients with differing insurance statuses in the field of spine surgery. However, no pooled analyses have performed a robust review characterizing differences in postoperative outcomes among patients with varying insurance types. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the PUBMED, MEDLINE(R), ERIC, and EMBASE was performed for studies comparing postoperative outcomes in patients with private insurance versus government insurance. Pooled incidence rates and odds ratios were calculated for each outcome and meta-analyses were conducted for 3 perioperative events and 2 types of complications. In addition to pooled analysis, sub-analyses were performed for each outcome in specific government payer statuses. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies (5,018,165 total patients) were included. Compared with patients with private insurance, patients with government insurance experienced greater risk of 90-day re-admission (OR 1.84, p<.0001), non-routine discharge (OR 4.40, p<.0001), extended LOS (OR 1.82, p<.0001), any postoperative complication (OR 1.61, p<.0001), and any medical complication (OR 1.93, p<.0001). These differences persisted across outcomes in sub-analyses comparing Medicare or Medicaid to private insurance. Similarly, across all examined outcomes, Medicare patients had a higher risk of experiencing an adverse event compared with non-Medicare patients. Compared with Medicaid patients, Medicare patients were only more likely to experience non-routine discharge (OR 2.68, p=.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with government insurance experience greater likelihood of morbidity across several perioperative outcomes. Additionally, Medicare patients fare worse than non-Medicare patients across outcomes, potentially due to age-based discrimination. Based on these results, it is clear that directed measures should be taken to ensure that underinsured patients receive equal access to resources and quality care.