• Adrian R Levy, Boris G Sobolev, Robert Hayden, Michael Kiely, J Mark Fitzgerald, and Martin T Schechter.
• Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. alevy@cheos.ubc.ca
• Bmc Health Serv Res. 2005 Mar 14; 5 (1): 22.

BackgroundIn British Columbia, Canada, all necessary medical services are funded publicly. Concerned with growing wait lists in the mid-1990s, the provincial government started providing extra funding for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations annually. Although aimed at improving access, it is not known whether supplementary funding changed the time that patients spent on wait lists for CABG. We sought to determine whether the period of registration on wait lists had an effect on time to isolated CABG and whether the period effect was similar across priority groups.MethodsUsing records from a population-based registry, we studied the wait-list time before and after supplementary funding became available. We compared the number of weeks from registration to surgery for equal proportions of patients in synthetic cohorts defined by five registration periods in the 1990s.ResultsOverall, 9,231 patients spent a total of 137,126 person-weeks on the wait lists. The time to surgery increased by the middle of the decade, and decreased toward the end of the decade. Relative to the 1991-92 registration period, the conditional weekly probabilities of undergoing surgery were 30% lower among patients registered on the wait lists in 1995-96, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70 (0.65-0.76), and 23% lower in 1997-98 patients, HR = 0.77 (0.71-0.83), while there were no differences with 1999-2000 patients, HR = 0.94 (0.88-1.02), after adjusting for priority group at registration, comorbidity, age and sex. We found that the effect of registration period was different across priority groups.ConclusionOur results provide evidence that time to CABG shortened after supplementary funding was provided on an annual basis to tertiary care hospitals within a single publicly funded health system. One plausible explanation is that these hospitals had capacity to increase the number of operations. At the same time, the effect was not uniform across priority groups indicating that changes in clinical practice should be considered when adding extra funding to reduce wait lists.

22 keywords...

hide…