Davies A R, Ware J E, Brook R H, Peterson J R, Newhouse J P
Health Serv Res. 1986 Aug;21(3):429-52.
Do consumers find the care provided by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and that provided in the fee-for-service (FFS) system equally acceptable? To address this question, we randomly assigned 1,537 people ages 17 to 61 either to FFS insurance plans that allowed choice of physicians or to a well-established HMO. We also studied 486 people who had already selected the HMO (control group). Those who had chosen the HMO were as satisfied overall with medical care providers and services as their FFS counterparts. The typical person assigned to the HMO, however, was significantly less satisfied overall relative to FFS participants. Attitudes toward specific features of care favored both FFS and HMO, depending on the feature rated. Four differences (length of appointment waits, parking arrangements, availability of hospitals, and continuity of care) favored FFS; two (length of office waits, costs of care) favored the HMO. HMO versus FFS differences in ratings of access to care and availability of resources mirror differences in the organizational features of these two systems that are generally considered responsible for the significantly lower medical expenditures at HMOs. Regardless of their origin, less favorable attitudes toward interpersonal and technical quality of care in the HMO have marked consequences: dissatisfaction and disenrollment.
消费者认为健康维护组织(HMO)提供的护理与按服务收费(FFS)系统提供的护理同样可接受吗?为了回答这个问题,我们将1537名年龄在17岁至61岁之间的人随机分配到允许选择医生的FFS保险计划或一家成熟的HMO。我们还研究了486名已经选择HMO的人(对照组)。选择HMO的人对医疗服务提供者和服务的总体满意度与他们在FFS系统中的同行一样。然而,被分配到HMO的普通人相对于FFS参与者总体满意度明显较低。对护理特定特征的态度因所评估的特征而异,对FFS和HMO都有利。有四个方面(预约等待时间、停车安排、医院可及性和护理连续性)对FFS有利;两个方面(候诊时间、护理费用)对HMO有利。HMO与FFS在获得护理和资源可及性评级方面的差异反映了这两个系统组织特征的差异,这些差异通常被认为是HMO医疗支出显著较低的原因。无论其来源如何,对HMO中人际和技术护理质量的不太有利态度都有明显后果:不满和退出。