Dataset Information

The impact of health plan delivery system organization on clinical quality and patient satisfaction.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which measures of health plan clinical performance and measures of patient perceptions of care are associated with health plan organizational characteristics, including the percentage of care provided based on a group or staff model delivery system, for-profit (tax) status, and affiliation with a national managed care firm.

Data sources

Data describing health plans on region, age of health plan, for-profit status, affiliation with a national managed care firm, percentage of Medicare business, total enrollment, ratio of primary care physicians to specialists, HMO penetration, and form of health care delivery system (e.g., IPA, network, mixed, staff, group) were obtained from InterStudy. Clinical performance measures for women's health screening rates, child and adolescent immunization rates, heart disease screening rates, diabetes screening rates, and smoking cessation were developed from HEDIS data. Measures of patient perceptions of care are obtained from CAHPS survey data submitted as Healthplan Employer Data and Information Set, Consumer Assessment of Health Plans 2.0 H.

Study design

Multivariate regression cross-sectional analysis of 272 health plans was used to evaluate the relationship of health plan characteristics with measures of clinical performance and patient perceptions of care.

Principal findings

The form of delivery system, measured by percent of care delivered by staff and group model systems, is significantly related (p < or = .05) with four of the five clinical performance indices but none of the three satisfaction performance indices. Other variables significantly associated with performance were being geographically located in the Northeast, having nonprofit status, and for patient satisfaction, not being part of a larger insurance company.

Conclusions

These comparative results provide evidence suggesting that the type of delivery system used by health plans is related to many clinical performance measures but is not related to patient perceptions of care. These findings underscore the importance of the form of the delivery system and the need for further inquiry that examines the relationship between organizational form and performance.

SUBMITTER: Gillies RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1797097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Most patients with anxiety disorders receive their care from primary care practitioners (PCPs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate quality of and patient satisfaction with primary health care for anxiety disorders.A survey was performed among 1,004 outpatients with anxiety disorders (diagnosed according to DSM-IV) referred by their PCPs from 17 primary care clinical settings (3 of which were university-affiliated) in 4 regions of the United States for participation in the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) study, a therapeutic trial. Participating research institutions were the University of Washington at Seattle, the University of California at San Diego and Los Angeles, and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock. Enrollment took place between June 2006 and April 2008. Patients were contacted by telephone after enrollment to provide information about previous care received (during the 6 months prior to referral) and satisfaction with that care. Quality-of-care indicators were self-reported type, dose, and duration of antianxiety medication treatment and self-reported psychotherapy with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) elements.A total of 576 patients (57.4%) had received an appropriate antianxiety medication in the previous 6 months, but only 289 patients (29.4% of 983 who answered this question) had received the medication at adequate dose for at least 2 months. A total of 465 patients (46.3%) had received some counseling with at least 1 element of CBT, but only 213 patients (21.2%) had received counseling with a strong (3+ elements) CBT focus. Overall, 416 patients (41.4%) had received quality pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy, and 81 patients (8.1%) had received both. Only 432 patients (44.8% of 964 who answered this question) were at least somewhat satisfied with their mental health care. Receipt of quality psychotherapy was the sole positive predictor (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.94-3.80; P < .0005) of satisfaction with mental health care for anxiety. Moreover, there was a dose-response relationship between the number of CBT elements consistently delivered and satisfaction with care (test for trend, z = 4.06, P < .0005).Despite recognition of these patients' anxiety disorders and referral by their PCPs to an anxiety treatment study, fewer than half of the patients had in the prior 6 months received quality pharmacologic and/or psychosocial mental health care. Receipt of CBT-oriented, quality psychosocial (but not pharmacologic) care showed a strong dose-response relationship with satisfaction with mental health care.

Project description:Plan degradation resulting from compromises made to enhance delivery efficiency is an important consideration for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. IMRT optimization and/or multileaf collimator (MLC) sequencing schemes can be modified to generate more efficient treatment delivery, but the effect those modifications have on plan quality is often difficult to quantify. In this work, the authors present a method for quantitative assessment of overall plan quality degradation due to tradeoffs between delivery efficiency and treatment plan quality, illustrated using comparisons between plans developed allowing different numbers of intensity levels in IMRT optimization and/or MLC sequencing for static segmental MLC IMRT plans.A plan quality degradation method to evaluate delivery efficiency and plan quality tradeoffs was developed and used to assess planning for 14 prostate and 12 head and neck patients treated with static IMRT. Plan quality was evaluated using a physician's predetermined "quality degradation" factors for relevant clinical plan metrics associated with the plan optimization strategy. Delivery efficiency and plan quality were assessed for a range of optimization and sequencing limitations. The "optimal" (baseline) plan for each case was derived using a clinical cost function with an unlimited number of intensity levels. These plans were sequenced with a clinical MLC leaf sequencer which uses >100 segments, assuring delivered intensities to be within 1% of the optimized intensity pattern. Each patient's optimal plan was also sequenced limiting the number of intensity levels (20, 10, and 5), and then separately optimized with these same numbers of intensity levels. Delivery time was measured for all plans, and direct evaluation of the tradeoffs between delivery time and plan degradation was performed.When considering tradeoffs, the optimal number of intensity levels depends on the treatment site and on the stage in the process at which the levels are limited. The cost of improved delivery efficiency, in terms of plan quality degradation, increased as the number of intensity levels in the sequencer or optimizer decreased. The degradation was more substantial for the head and neck cases relative to the prostate cases, particularly when fewer than 20 intensity levels were used. Plan quality degradation was less severe when the number of intensity levels was limited in the optimizer rather than the sequencer.Analysis of plan quality degradation allows for a quantitative assessment of the compromises in clinical plan quality as delivery efficiency is improved, in order to determine the optimal delivery settings. The technique is based on physician-determined quality degradation factors and can be extended to other clinical situations where investigation of various tradeoffs is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization.Patients and methodsPatients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined.ResultsIn total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician's explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14-5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00-4.77; P=.04).ConclusionsThis study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient-oncologist communication.