Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, and Department of Community & Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 1 Towerview Drive, Box 90127, Durham, NC 27708-0127, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2010 Apr;45(2):329-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01070.x. Epub 2009 Dec 30.
To examine the impact of Medicare managed care (MMC) versus Medicare fee for service (MFFS) on stent patients' use of physicians with lower resource use and better outcomes.
DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Retrospective secondary data from 2003 through 2006 for 67,476 patients without acute myocardial infarction, staying 2 or more days in hospital, and treated by 486 physicians in Florida performing 10 or more cases per quarter.
Analysis was at the patient level. Multivariate logistic models estimated the probability of an MMC patient using a physician with a particular risk-adjusted profile rank with respect to hospital peers.
No differences were found in usage of physicians with shorter admissions. Compared with MFFS, MMC patients were significantly less likely to use physicians whose average mortality was the lowest/lowest quartiles/below median among facility peers, and more likely to use a physician ranked below median on live discharges directly home (not needing home health care, skilled nursing care, or a subacute hospital convalescence). Similar results were found with emergency admissions, and where physicians both attended and treated.
Florida percutaneous coronary interventions patients insured by MMC used physicians with worse outcome profiles than those of MFFS patients. Results were not consistent with hospital care differences, physician-patient, or payor-physician selection, but they were consistent with selection of unobservably sicker members into MMC and concentration of MMC among physicians.
考察医疗保险管理式医疗(MMC)与医疗保险按服务收费(MFFS)对支架患者使用资源使用量较低且效果更好的医生的影响。
数据来源/研究范围:2003 年至 2006 年期间,佛罗里达州 486 名医生对 67476 名无急性心肌梗死、住院 2 天以上且每季度进行 10 例以上手术的患者进行回顾性二级数据分析。
分析基于患者水平。多元逻辑模型估计了 MMC 患者使用特定风险调整后具有特定风险调整后特征排名的医生的概率,该排名与医院同行有关。
在住院时间较短的医生使用方面,没有发现差异。与 MFFS 相比,MMC 患者使用死亡率最低/最低四分位数/中位数以下的医生的可能性显著降低,而使用直接出院回家的医生的可能性显著增加(不需要家庭保健、熟练护理或亚急性医院康复)。在急诊入院和医生同时就诊和治疗的情况下,也发现了类似的结果。
佛罗里达州经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者的医疗保险 MMC 患者使用的医生比 MFFS 患者的预后特征更差。结果与医院护理差异、医患关系或支付方-医生选择不一致,但与 MMC 中不可观察到的更严重患者的选择以及 MMC 在医生中的集中一致。