Suppr超能文献

双重资格受益人的特殊需求计划是否能获得更好的医疗保健?

Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?

机构信息

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2021 Jun;56(3):517-527. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13620. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) were intended to provide better care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid through better coordination of these two programs.

DATA SOURCES

671 913 dual eligible (DE) respondents to the 2009-2019 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared the 2015-2019 experiences of DE beneficiaries in D-SNPs relative to fee-for-service Medicare (FFS) and non-SNP Medicare Advantage (MA) using propensity-score weighted linear regression. Comparisons were made to 2009-2014. 12 patient experience measures were considered.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Annual mail survey with telephone follow-up of non-respondents.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

More than 65% of DE beneficiaries enrolled in FFS. Of 12 measures, D-SNP performance was higher than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), lower than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), and higher than FFS on four (P < .01). DE beneficiaries did not report better coordination of care in D-SNPs. D-SNP performance was often worse than other coverage types in prior periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to FFS Medicare, DE beneficiaries report higher immunization rates in D-SNPs, but slight or no better performance on other dimensions of patient experience. New requirements in 2021 may help D-SNPs attain their goal of better care coordination.

摘要

目的

双重资格特殊需求计划(D-SNPs)旨在通过更好地协调这两个计划,为同时符合医疗保险和医疗补助资格的受益人提供更好的护理。

数据来源

2009 年至 2019 年医疗保险消费者评估医疗保健提供者和系统(CAHPS)调查中,671913 名双重合格(DE)受访者。

研究设计

我们使用倾向评分加权线性回归,将 D-SNP 中 DE 受益人的 2015 年至 2019 年的经历与医疗保险按服务收费(FFS)和非 SNP 医疗保险优势(MA)进行比较。与 2009 年至 2014 年进行了比较。考虑了 12 项患者体验指标。

数据收集方法

每年进行邮件调查,并对未回复者进行电话跟进。

主要发现

超过 65%的 DE 受益人参加了 FFS。在 12 项措施中,D-SNP 的表现有两项优于非 SNP MA(P<0.05),两项劣于非 SNP MA(P<0.05),四项优于 FFS(P<0.01)。DE 受益人并未报告在 D-SNPs 中更好地协调护理。在之前的时期,D-SNP 的表现往往劣于其他覆盖类型。

结论

与 FFS 医疗保险相比,DE 受益人在 D-SNPs 中报告的免疫接种率较高,但在患者体验的其他方面的表现仅略有改善或没有改善。2021 年的新要求可能有助于 D-SNPs 实现更好的护理协调目标。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

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