• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

2012年农村医疗保险优势质量评级与奖金支付

2012 rural Medicare Advantage quality ratings and bonus payments.

作者信息

Kemper Leah, Barker Abigail R, McBride Timothy D, Mueller Keith

出版信息

Rural Policy Brief. 2014 Jan 1(2014 1):1-4.

PMID:25399466
Abstract

Key Data Findings. (1) The average rural Medicare Advantage (MA) plan enrollee in 2012 experienced a quality rating of 3.60 stars (of a potential 5.0), compared with a rating of 3.71 stars experienced by urban enrollees. (2) The measured rural-urban difference in the MA plan quality is a result of the difference in the composition of the enrollment and plan availability in MA markets, rather than differences between MA plans of the same type. (a) In general, rural Medicare beneficiaries often have limited MA plans available from which to choose, and typically have lower quality ratings than urban MA plans. (b) Rural MA beneficiaries are more likely to be enrolled in preferred provider organization (PPO) plans than in health maintenance organization (HMO) plans. (c) PPO plans have lower quality ratings on average than HMO plans. (d) HMO plans had the highest average quality rating at 3.83 and 3.78 stars, respectively, in rural and urban areas. PPO plans had lower quality ratings, at 3.52 and 3.50, respectively. (3) In rural areas, 32% of the MA population is enrolled in a plan with a star rating of 4.0 or higher, and 92% are enrolled in a plan with a star rating of at least 3.0, as contrasted to urban enrollment of 36% and 94% respectively, making these plans eligible for quality based bonus payments. (4) The quality rating of rural MA plans varies significantly across the country, with the highest quality ratings in rural areas in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Maine.

摘要

关键数据发现。(1) 2012年农村医疗保险优势(MA)计划的参保者平均质量评级为3.60星(满分5.0星),而城市参保者的评级为3.71星。(2) MA计划质量方面所测得的城乡差异是MA市场中参保构成和计划可获得性差异的结果,而非同一类型MA计划之间的差异。(a) 一般而言,农村医疗保险受益人通常可选择的MA计划有限,且其质量评级通常低于城市MA计划。(b) 农村MA受益人比健康维护组织(HMO)计划更有可能参保优先提供者组织(PPO)计划。(c) PPO计划的平均质量评级低于HMO计划。(d) HMO计划在农村和城市地区的平均质量评级最高,分别为3.83星和3.78星。PPO计划的质量评级较低,分别为3.52星和3.50星。(3) 在农村地区,32%的MA参保人群参保的计划评级为4.0星或更高,92%参保的计划评级至少为3.0星,相比之下,城市参保率分别为36%和94%,这使得这些计划有资格获得基于质量的奖金支付。(4) 农村MA计划的质量评级在全国范围内差异很大,明尼苏达州、爱荷华州、威斯康星州、俄勒冈州、宾夕法尼亚州和缅因州农村地区的质量评级最高。

相似文献

1
2012 rural Medicare Advantage quality ratings and bonus payments.2012年农村医疗保险优势质量评级与奖金支付
Rural Policy Brief. 2014 Jan 1(2014 1):1-4.
2
Rural Medicare Advantage Plan Payment in 2015.2015年农村医疗保险优势计划支付情况
Rural Policy Brief. 2015 Dec 1(2015 12):1-5.
3
2014: Rural Medicare Advantage Enrollment Update.2014年:农村医疗保险优势参保情况更新
Rural Policy Brief. 2015 Jan 1(2015 1):1-4.
4
2015: Rural Medicare Advantage Enrollment Update.2015年:农村医疗保险优势参保情况更新
Rural Policy Brief. 2015 Jul 1(2015 9):1-2.
5
June 2012: rural MA enrollment and premium update.2012年6月:马萨诸塞州农村地区参保情况及保费更新。
Rural Policy Brief. 2013 Feb 1(2013 2):1-4.
6
Rural Medicare Advantage Market Dynamics and Quality: Historical Context and Current Implications.农村医疗保险优势市场动态与质量:历史背景及当前影响
Rural Policy Brief. 2016 Jul 1(2016 3):1-4.
7
Medicare Advantage Enrollment Update 2017.2017年医疗保险优势参保情况更新
Rural Policy Brief. 2017 Aug 1;2017(5):1-5.
8
Higher Incentive Payments in Medicare Advantage's Pay-for-Performance Program Did Not Improve Quality But Did Increase Plan Offerings.医疗保险优势计划按绩效付费项目中更高的激励支付并未提高质量,但确实增加了计划产品。
Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec;50(6):1810-28. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12409. Epub 2015 Nov 9.
9
March 2013: Medicare Advantage update.2013年3月:医疗保险优势更新。
Rural Policy Brief. 2013 Sep 1(2013 14):1-2.
10
Rural-Urban Enrollment in Part D Prescription Drug Plans: June 2017 Update.《2017年6月更新:城乡居民参加D部分处方药计划的情况》
Rural Policy Brief. 2017 Dec 1;2017(7):1-6.