Suppr超能文献

了解医疗保险消费者对医疗服务提供者及系统评分的差异:以加利福尼亚州为例。

Understanding variations in Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems scores: California as an example.

机构信息

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct;46(5):1646-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01279.x. Epub 2011 Jun 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To understand reasons why California has lower Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) scores than the rest of the country, including differing patterns of CAHPS scores between Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service, effects of additional demographic characteristics of beneficiaries, and variation across MA plans within California.

STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION: Using 2008 CAHPS survey data for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and MA members, we compared mean case mix adjusted Medicare CAHPS scores for California and the remainder of the nation.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

California fee-for-service Medicare had lower scores than non-California fee-for-service on 11 of 14 CAHPS measures; California MA had lower scores only for physician services measures and higher scores for other measures. Adding race/ethnicity and urbanity to risk adjustment improved California standing for all measures in both MA and fee-for-service. Within the MA plans, one large plan accounted for the positive performance in California MA; other California plans performed below national averages.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the mix of fee-for-service and MA enrollees, demographic characteristics of populations, and plan-specific factors can all play a role in observed regional variations. Anticipating value-based payments, further study of successful MA plans could generate lessons for enhancing patient experience for the Medicare population.

摘要

目的

了解加利福尼亚州医疗服务提供者和系统消费者评估(CAHPS)得分低于美国其他地区的原因,包括医疗保险优势(MA)和按服务收费模式下CAHPS得分的不同模式、受益人的其他人口统计学特征的影响以及加利福尼亚州内各MA计划之间的差异。

研究设计/数据收集:利用2008年CAHPS针对按服务收费的医疗保险受益人和MA成员的调查数据,我们比较了加利福尼亚州和美国其他地区经病例组合调整后的医疗保险CAHPS平均得分。

主要发现

在14项CAHPS指标中的11项上,加利福尼亚州按服务收费的医疗保险得分低于非加利福尼亚州按服务收费的医疗保险;加利福尼亚州的MA仅在医生服务指标上得分较低,而在其他指标上得分较高。在风险调整中加入种族/族裔和城市化程度,提高了加利福尼亚州在MA和按服务收费两种模式下所有指标的排名。在MA计划中,一个大型计划使加利福尼亚州MA表现良好;其他加利福尼亚州的计划表现低于全国平均水平。

结论

本研究表明,按服务收费和MA参保者的构成、人群的人口统计学特征以及特定计划因素都可能在观察到的地区差异中发挥作用。预期基于价值的支付方式,对成功的MA计划进行进一步研究可能会为改善医疗保险人群的患者体验提供经验教训。

相似文献

1
Understanding variations in Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems scores: California as an example.
Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct;46(5):1646-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01279.x. Epub 2011 Jun 3.
3
Market variations in intensity of Medicare service use and beneficiary experiences with care.
Health Serv Res. 2010 Jun;45(3):647-69. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01108.x. Epub 2010 Apr 6.
4
Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?
Health Serv Res. 2021 Jun;56(3):517-527. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13620. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
5
How do the experiences of Medicare beneficiary subgroups differ between managed care and original Medicare?
Health Serv Res. 2011 Aug;46(4):1039-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01245.x. Epub 2011 Feb 9.
6
Reporting CAHPS and HEDIS data by race/ethnicity for Medicare beneficiaries.
Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr;48(2 Pt 1):417-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01452.x. Epub 2012 Aug 2.
8
Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2438994. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.38994.

引用本文的文献

1
New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun 3;7(6):e2415058. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15058.
2
The association between Asian patient race/ethnicity and lower satisfaction scores.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 22;20(1):678. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05534-6.
3
A Review of Best Practices for Monitoring and Improving Inpatient Pediatric Patient Experiences.
Hosp Pediatr. 2020 Mar;10(3):277-285. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0243. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
4
Variation in Family Experience of Pediatric Inpatient Care As Measured by Child HCAHPS.
Pediatrics. 2017 Apr;139(4). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3372. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
5
Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.
Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug;52(4):1310-1329. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12544. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
7
Religiosity, Social Support and Care Associated with Health in Older Mexicans with Diabetes.
J Relig Health. 2016 Aug;55(4):1394-410. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-0105-7.
8
Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 May;30(5):641-50. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3162-9. Epub 2015 Jan 14.
10
Racial/ethnic disparities in Medicare Part D experiences.
Med Care. 2012 Nov;50 Suppl(Suppl):S40-7. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182610aa5.

本文引用的文献

1
Adjusting Performance Measures to Ensure Equitable Plan Comparisons.
Health Care Financ Rev. 2001 Spring;22(3):109-126.
2
Medicare Managed Care CAHPS: A Tool for Performance Improvement.
Health Care Financ Rev. 2001 Spring;22(3):101-107.
3
Imaging studies for low back pain.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2008;22(4):306-11. doi: 10.1080/15360280802537332.
4
Racial/ethnic differences in patients' perceptions of inpatient care using the HCAHPS survey.
Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Feb;67(1):74-92. doi: 10.1177/1077558709341066. Epub 2009 Aug 3.
7
Adjusting for subgroup differences in extreme response tendency in ratings of health care: impact on disparity estimates.
Health Serv Res. 2009 Apr;44(2 Pt 1):542-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00922.x. Epub 2008 Nov 24.
8
Survey response style and differential use of CAHPS rating scales by Hispanics.
Med Care. 2008 Sep;46(9):963-8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181791924.
9
The influence of care management tools on physician practice change across organizational settings.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007 Nov;33(11):672-80. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33077-8.
10
A comparison of quality of care indicators in urban acute care hospitals and rural critical access hospitals in the United States.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Jun;19(3):141-9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm010. Epub 2007 Apr 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验