Zhang James X, Huang Elbert S, Drum Melinda L, Kirchhoff Anne C, Schlichting Jennifer A, Schaefer Cynthia T, Heuer Loretta J, Chin Marshall H
Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2009 Apr;99(4):742-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.125534. Epub 2008 Sep 17.
We sought to compare quality of diabetes care by insurance type in federally funded community health centers. Method. We categorized 2018 diabetes patients, randomly selected from 27 community health centers in 17 states in 2002, into 6 mutually exclusive insurance groups. We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare quality of diabetes care according to 6 National Committee for Quality Assurance Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set diabetes processes of care and outcome measures.
Thirty-three percent of patients had no health insurance, 24% had Medicare only, 15% had Medicaid only, 7% had both Medicare and Medicaid, 14% had private insurance, and 7% had another insurance type. Those without insurance were the least likely to meet the quality-of-care measures; those with Medicaid had a quality of care similar to those with no insurance.
Research is needed to identify the major mediators of differences in quality of care by insurance status among safety-net providers such as community health centers. Such research is needed for policy interventions at Medicaid benefit design and as an incentive to improve quality of care.
我们试图比较联邦资助的社区卫生中心中不同保险类型的糖尿病护理质量。方法。我们将2002年从17个州的27个社区卫生中心随机选取的2018名糖尿病患者分为6个相互排斥的保险组。我们使用多变量逻辑回归分析,根据6项美国国家质量保证委员会健康计划雇主数据和信息集糖尿病护理流程及结果指标,比较糖尿病护理质量。
33%的患者没有医疗保险,24%的患者仅拥有医疗保险,15%的患者仅拥有医疗补助,7%的患者同时拥有医疗保险和医疗补助,14%的患者拥有私人保险,7%的患者拥有其他保险类型。没有保险的患者最不可能达到护理质量指标;拥有医疗补助的患者的护理质量与没有保险的患者相似。
需要开展研究,以确定社区卫生中心等安全网提供者中,保险状况导致护理质量差异的主要调节因素。在医疗补助福利设计中进行政策干预以及作为提高护理质量的激励措施,都需要这样的研究。