Are patients at Veterans Affairs medical centers sicker? A comparative analysis of health status and medical resource use.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) health system has been criticized for being inefficient based on comparisons of VA care with non-VA care. Whether such comparisons are biased by differences between the VA patient population and the non-VA patient population is not known. Our objective is to determine if VA patients are different from non-VA patients in terms of health status and medical resource use. METHOD: We analyzed 128,099 records from the National Health Interview Survey for the years 1993 and 1994. We compared the VA patient population with the general patient population for self report on health status, number of medical conditions, number of outpatient physician visits, number of hospital admissions, and number of hospital days each year. RESULTS: The VA patient population had poorer health status (odds ratio [OR], 14.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-20.2), more medical conditions (OR, 14; 95% CI, 10.5-18.7), and higher medical resource use compared with the general patient population (OR, 3.7 for 3 or more physician visits per year; OR 5.4 for 3 or more hospital admissions per year; OR, 7.7 for 21 or more days spent in a hospital per year). However, after controlling for health and sociodemographic differences, VA patients had similar resource use compared with the general patient population. CONCLUSION: Large differences in sociodemographic status, health status, and subsequent resource use exist between the VA and the general patient population. Therefore, comparisons of VA care with non-VA care need to take these differences into account. Furthermore, health care planning and resource allocation within the VA should not be based on data extrapolated from non-VA patient populations. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3252-3257.

Preventing restenosis with fish oils following coronary angioplasty. A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: No medical therapy has been shown to reduce the rate of restenosis following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. We examined the existing evidence for the use of omega-3 fatty acids in this capacity with the tool of meta-analysis. METHODS: A computerized search and a bibliographic review of published articles were performed. Abstracts were identified through journals, Index Medicus, and an unpublished listing of recent requests for fish oil for experimental use. All English-language randomized clinical trials with available reports were included in the analysis. The quality, design differences, and outcomes were evaluated for each study. RESULTS: For four studies that used angiography to define coronary restenosis, the absolute difference in restenosis rates between treatment and control groups was 13.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2% to 24.5%). Furthermore, regression analysis revealed a positive linear relationship between the dose of omega-3 fatty acids used and the absolute difference in restenosis rates (r = .99, P < .03). When three studies that used stress testing as a means of determining restenosis rates were added to the four studies that used angiography, the risk difference was 5.1% (95% CI, -3.8% to 13.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Restenosis after coronary angioplasty is reduced by supplemental fish oils, and the extent of the observed benefit may be dependent on the dose of omega-3 fatty acids used.