Dataset Information

Geographic context of black-white disparities in Medicare CAHPS patient experience measures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine whether black-white patient experience disparities vary by geography and within-county contextual factors.

Data sources

321 300 Medicare beneficiaries responding to the 2015-2016 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) Surveys; 2010 Census data for several within-county contextual factors.

Study design

Mixed-effects regression models predicted three MCAHPS patient experience measures for black and white beneficiaries from geographic random effects, contextual fixed effects, and beneficiary-level case-mix adjustors.

Principal findings

Black-white disparities in patient experiences were smaller in counties with higher average patient experiences. Black-white disparities in patient experiences were not associated with county-level poverty or racial segregation. However, county racial segregation and some measures of poverty were significantly associated with all beneficiaries' level of health care access. Getting Needed Care scores were higher with greater racial segregation, while Getting Care Quickly scores were lower with higher poverty and racial segregation.

Conclusions

Efforts to reduce black-white disparities in patient experiences should focus on areas with low average patient experiences. Attempts to reduce disparities in timely access to health care should target primarily black, low-income, and racially and economically segregated areas. Positive associations of racial segregation with accessing needed care were unexpected.

SUBMITTER: Fenton AT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6341209 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Geographic context of black-white disparities in Medicare CAHPS patient experience measures.

Fenton Anny T AT Burkhart Q Q Weech-Maldonado Robert R Haviland Amelia M AM Dembosky Jacob W JW Shih Regina R Wilson-Frederick Shondelle M SM Gaillot Sarah S Elliott Marc N MN

Health services research 20181123

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether black-white patient experience disparities vary by geography and within-county contextual factors.<h4>Data sources</h4>321 300 Medicare beneficiaries responding to the 2015-2016 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) Surveys; 2010 Census data for several within-county contextual factors.<h4>Study design</h4>Mixed-effects regression models predicted three MCAHPS patient experience measures for black and white beneficiaries f ...[more]

PMID: 30467831

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is significant promise in analyzing physician patient-sharing networks to indirectly measure care coordination, yet it is unknown whether these measures reflect patients' perceptions of care coordination. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the associations between network-based measures of care coordination and patient-reported experience measures. DESIGN:We analyzed patient-sharing physician networks within group practices using data made available by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. SUBJECTS:Medicare beneficiaries who provided responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey in 2016 (data aggregated by physician group practice made available through the Physician Compare 2016 Group Public Reporting). MAIN MEASURES:The outcomes of interest were patient-reported experience measures reflecting aspects of care coordination (CAHPS). The predictor variables of interests were physician group practice density (the number of physician pairs who share patients adjusting for the total number of physician pairs) and clustering (the extent to which sets of three physicians share patients). KEY RESULTS:Four hundred seventy-six groups had patient-reported measures available. Patients' perception of "Clinicians working together for your care" was significantly positively associated with both physician group practice density (Est (95?%?CI)?=?5.07(0.83,?9.33),?p?=?0.02) and clustering (Est (95?%?CI)?=?3.73(1.01,?6.44),?p?=?0.007). Physician group practice clustering was also significantly positively associated with "Getting timely care, appointments, and information" (Est (95?%?CI)?=?4.63(0.21,?9.06), p?=?0.04). CONCLUSIONS:This work suggests that network-based measures of care coordination are associated with some patient-reported experience measures. Evaluating and intervening on patient-sharing networks may provide novel strategies for initiatives aimed at improving quality of care and the patient experience.

Project description:Surgical resection is the primary treatment for colon cancer, but use of laparoscopic approaches varies widely despite demonstrated short- and long-term benefits.The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with laparoscopic colon cancer resection and to quantify variation based on patient, hospital, and geographic characteristics.Bayesian cross-classified, multilevel logistic models calculated adjusted ORs and CIs for patient, surgeon, hospital, and geographic characteristics and unexplained variability (predicted vs. observed values) using adjusted median odds ratios for hospitals and counties.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare claims database (2008-2011) supplemented with county-level American Community Survey (2008-2012) demographic data was used.A total of 10,618 patients ?66 years old who underwent colon cancer resection were included.Nonurgent/nonemergent resections for colon cancer patients ?66 years old were classified as laparoscopic or open procedures.Patients resided in 579 counties and used 950 hospitals; 47% of patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Medicare/Medicaid dual enrollment, age ?85 years, and higher tumor stage and grade were negatively associated with laparoscopic surgery receipt; proximal tumors and increasing hospital size and surgeon caseload were positively associated. Significant unexplained variability at the hospital (adjusted median OR = 3.31; p < 0.001) and county levels (adjusted median OR = 1.28; p < 0.05) remained after adjustment.This was an observational study lacking generalizability to younger patients without Medicare or those with Health Maintenance Organization coverage and data set did not reflect national hospital studies or hospital volume. In addition, we were unable to account for specific types of comorbidities, such as obesity, and had broad categories for surgeon caseload.Determining sources of hospital-level variation among poor insured patients may help increase laparoscopic resection to maximize health outcomes and reduce cost. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A363.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand disparities in primary care patient experience.DesignA serial cross-sectional study was conducted to understand disparities in patient experience at 2 time points (2014 and 2016). Disparities related to age, gender, neighbourhood income, and self-rated health were explored using 3 analytic approaches: stratification, logistic regression, and relative comparison across multiple demographic variables.SettingA multisite family health team in Toronto, Ont.ParticipantsPatients in the family medicine practice who completed e-mail surveys in 2014 (n = 1171, 19% response rate) and 2016 (n = 1823, 15% response rate).Main outcome measuresPatient-reported access (timely access when sick, access after hours) and patient-centredness (opportunity to ask questions, involvement in care decisions, enough time with provider).ResultsPerformance for all measures improved between 2014 and 2016, with the greatest absolute improvement seen in access after hours (61% in 2014; 75% in 2016). Patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported worse patient experiences than those in high-income neighbourhoods did, as did patients with poor versus excellent self-rated health, even after adjustment for other variables. For example, in 2016, 60% of patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported timely access when sick versus 70% in high-income neighbourhoods (adjusted odds ratio of 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95); 60% of patients with poor or fair self-rated health reported timely access when sick versus 72% with excellent self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio of 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84). Comparing across demographic groups, patients with excellent self-rated health and poor or fair self-rated health reported the best and worst experiences, respectively, for all measures. In 2016, the average disparity between subgroups was largest for access after hours.ConclusionIn this setting, patient experience was worse for patients in lower-income neighbourhoods and those with poor or fair self-rated health. Access after hours demonstrated the greatest overall absolute improvement but also the greatest widening of disparities.

Dataset Information

Geographic context of black-white disparities in Medicare CAHPS patient experience measures.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Geographic context of black-white disparities in Medicare CAHPS patient experience measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets