Suppr超能文献

提供者主导的健康计划与质量、利用和满意度之间的关系。

Relationships between provider-led health plans and quality, utilization, and satisfaction.

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Email:

出版信息

Am J Manag Care. 2018 Dec;24(12):628-632.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare healthcare quality, utilization, and patient satisfaction between provider-led health plans (PLHPs) and non-PLHPs.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study of 2016 Medicare Advantage (MA) plans.

METHODS

We included 3 quality outcomes (MA Star Rating System, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] effectiveness aggregate score, and HEDIS access aggregate score), 4 utilization outcomes (HEDIS average procedure rates, discharge rates, inpatient days, and readmission probability), and 1 patient satisfaction outcome (National Committee for Quality Assurance consumer satisfaction rating). We performed regression analysis to compare the 8 selected outcomes between PLHPs and non-PLHPs, controlling for key covariates, including region, profit status, patient risk, and patient-related and provider-related demographics.

RESULTS

Our sample included 64 contracts offered by 31 PLHPs (representing 3,197,284 enrollees) and 311 contracts offered by 55 non-PLHPs (representing 13,881,210 enrollees). Compared with non-PLHPs, in our primary multivariable model, PLHPs were associated with higher star ratings (β = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67), effectiveness scores (β = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.43-4.80), and patient satisfaction (β = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30-0.84), and lower procedure rates (β = -0.47; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.16). There were no significant differences in access, discharges, inpatient days, and readmission probability. The association between PLHPs and outcomes differed by plan size, nonprofit status, and region.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of care within a PLHP was associated with improved quality, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction, as well as lower procedure rates. As providers bear increasing financial risk under alternative payment models, there is momentum to integrate healthcare provision and payment through PLHPs. Our results demonstrate the potential of such organizations to deliver high-quality care, although opportunities remain to optimize utilization.

摘要

目的

比较提供者主导的健康计划(PLHP)和非 PLHP 之间的医疗质量、利用率和患者满意度。

研究设计

对 2016 年医疗保险优势(MA)计划的观察性研究。

方法

我们纳入了 3 项质量指标(MA 星级评分系统、医疗保健效果数据和信息集[HEDIS]效果综合评分和 HEDIS 获得综合评分)、4 项利用率指标(HEDIS 平均程序率、出院率、住院天数和再入院率)和 1 项患者满意度指标(全国质量保证委员会消费者满意度评分)。我们进行了回归分析,以比较 PLHP 和非 PLHP 之间的 8 项选定结果,同时控制了关键协变量,包括区域、盈利状况、患者风险以及患者和提供者相关的人口统计学特征。

结果

我们的样本包括 31 个 PLHP 提供的 64 份合同(代表 3197284 名参保人)和 55 个非 PLHP 提供的 311 份合同(代表 13881210 名参保人)。与非 PLHP 相比,在我们的主要多变量模型中,PLHP 与更高的星级评分(β=0.41;95%CI,0.15-0.67)、效果评分(β=3.11;95%CI,1.43-4.80)和患者满意度(β=0.57;95%CI,0.30-0.84)相关,而程序率较低(β=-0.47;95%CI,-0.79 至-0.16)。在获得途径、出院、住院天数和再入院率方面没有显著差异。PLHP 与结果之间的关联因计划规模、非营利地位和地区而异。

结论

在 PLHP 中接受护理与提高质量、效果和患者满意度以及降低程序率相关。随着提供者在替代支付模式下承担越来越多的财务风险,通过 PLHP 整合医疗保健提供和支付的动力正在增强。我们的研究结果表明,这些组织有潜力提供高质量的护理,尽管仍有机会优化利用率。

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