Hoffman Geoffrey
UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Med Care Res Rev. 2015 Feb;72(1):49-70. doi: 10.1177/1077558714563169. Epub 2014 Dec 23.
Pooled data from the 2007, 2009, and 2011/2012 California Health Interview Surveys were used to compare the number of self-reported annual physician visits among 36,808 Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 in insurance groups with differential cost-sharing. Adjusted for adverse selection and a set of health covariates, Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) only beneficiaries had similar physician utilization compared with HMO enrollees but fewer visits compared with those with supplemental (1.04, p = .001) and Medicaid (1.55, p = .003) coverage. FFS only beneficiaries in very good or excellent health had fewer visits compared with those of similar health status with supplemental (1.30, p = .001) or Medicaid coverage (2.15, p = .002). For subpopulations with several chronic conditions, FFS only beneficiaries also had fewer visits compared with beneficiaries with supplemental or Medicaid coverage. Observed differences in utilization may reflect efficient and necessary physician utilization among those with chronic health needs.
来自2007年、2009年以及2011/2012年加利福尼亚健康访谈调查的汇总数据,被用于比较36,808名年龄≥65岁、处于不同费用分摊保险组的医疗保险受益人的年度自我报告看诊次数。在对逆向选择和一系列健康协变量进行调整后,仅参加医疗保险按服务项目付费(FFS)的受益人,与健康维护组织(HMO)参保者相比,有相似的医生利用率,但与有补充保险(差异系数为1.04,p = 0.001)和医疗补助保险(差异系数为1.55,p = 0.003)覆盖的受益人相比,看诊次数较少。与健康状况相似但有补充保险(差异系数为1.30,p = 0.001)或医疗补助保险覆盖(差异系数为2.15,p = 0.002)的受益人相比,健康状况非常好或极佳的仅参加FFS的受益人看诊次数较少。对于患有多种慢性病的亚人群,仅参加FFS的受益人与有补充保险或医疗补助保险覆盖的受益人相比,看诊次数也较少。观察到的利用率差异可能反映了有慢性健康需求者有效且必要的医生利用率情况。