 |
 |

Regionalization of Coronary Angioplasty and Travel Distance
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor: Ms Kansagra and colleagues1 concluded that regionalization policies for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty would not affect patient travel distances. Although the study and results are compelling, additional analyses may provide further insight and possibly different findings. Results from New Jersey, New York, and Florida may not be applicable to other states with lower physician and population densities. Also, the overall results may not reflect variation among different regions (eg, Western New York, Florida panhandle) and counties within the 3 states.Regionalization could have significantly different effects on rural, suburban, and urban areas that have varying access to physicians and hospitals. For example, Losina et al2 found that policies restricting total hip replacements to high-volume centers would differentially affect poor, less-educated, and rural patients. Stratifying the analysis by population density, socioeconomic indicators, types of insurance carriers, and health care professional and facility density may be very valuable.
The authors . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA
brucelee@mail.med.upenn.edu Division of General Internal Medicine
Anand Shah, BS
School of Medicine
Esther H. Chen, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia
RELATED ARTICLE
Regionalization of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty and Implications for Patient Travel Distance
Susan M. Kansagra, Lesley H. Curtis, and Kevin A. Schulman
JAMA. 2004;292(14):1717-1723.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Driving Times and Distances to Hospitals With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: Implications for Prehospital Triage of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Nallamothu et al.
Circulation 2006;113:1189-1195.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|