Michael A. Gaglia, Rebecca Torguson, Zhenyi Xue, Manuel A. Gonzalez, Itsik Ben-Dor, Gabriel Maluenda, Michael Mahmoudi, Gabriel Sardi, Kohei Wakabayashi, Kimberly Kaneshige, William O. Suddath, Kenneth M. Kent, Lowell F. Satler, Augusto D. Pichard, Ron Waksman

Previous studies have documented disparities in both access to invasive cardiovascular procedures and outcomes in patients with Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance. Outcomes by insurance have yet not been examined in a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population. Data from patients undergoing PCI from June 2000 to June 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Insurance was categorized as private, Medicare, Medicaid, and uninsured, according to the primary insurance at discharge. The outcome variable of interest was major adverse cardiac events (a composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was stratified according to age <65 and ≥65 years. Of the 13,573 patients who had undergone PCI, 6,653 (49.0%) had private insurance, 6,150 (45.3%) had Medicare, 486 (3.6%) had Medicaid, and 284 (2.1%) were uninsured. Of the patients <65 years old, Medicaid (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 2.43), Medicare (HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.99), and no insurance (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.27) were associated with greater rates of adjusted major adverse cardiac events at 1 year compared with private insurance. Of the patients ≥65 years old, only Medicaid (HR 3.07, 95% CI 1.09 to 8.61) was associated with a greater rate of adjusted major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. In conclusion, patients with government-sponsored insurance and no insurance have worse cardiovascular outcomes than patients with private insurance after PCI at 1 year. This implies that the provision of health insurance alone might not have a dramatic effect on cardiovascular outcomes after PCI.