Access, satisfaction, and utilization in two forms of Medicaid managed care.

W. R. Smith, J. Cotter, D. McClish, V. Bovbjerg, L. Rossiter
{"title":"Access, satisfaction, and utilization in two forms of Medicaid managed care.","authors":"W. R. Smith, J. Cotter, D. McClish, V. Bovbjerg, L. Rossiter","doi":"10.1108/14664100010351297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We determined access and satisfaction of 2,598 recipients of Virginia's Medicaid program, comparing its health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to its primary care case management (PCCM) program. Positive responses were summed as sub-domains either of access, satisfaction, or of utilization, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for HMO (vs. PCCM) sub-domain scores. The response rate was 47 per cent. We found few significant differences in perceived access, satisfaction, and utilization. Both HMO adults and children more often perceived good geographic access (adults, OR, [CI] = 1.50, [1.04-2.16]; children, OR, [CI] = 1.773 [1.158, 2.716]). But HMO patients less often reported good after-hours access (adults, OR, [CI] = 0.527 [0.335, 0.830]; children, OR, [CI] = 0.583 [0.380, 0.894]). Among all patients reporting poorer function, HMO patients more often reported good general and preventive care (OR, [CI] = 2.735 [1.138, 6.575]). We found some differences between Medicaid HMO versus PCCM recipients' reported access, satisfaction, and utilization, but were unable to validate concerns about access and quality under more restrictive forms of Medicaid managed care.","PeriodicalId":79831,"journal":{"name":"Clinical performance and quality health care","volume":"145 1","pages":"150-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical performance and quality health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/14664100010351297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

We determined access and satisfaction of 2,598 recipients of Virginia's Medicaid program, comparing its health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to its primary care case management (PCCM) program. Positive responses were summed as sub-domains either of access, satisfaction, or of utilization, and adjusted odds ratios were calculated for HMO (vs. PCCM) sub-domain scores. The response rate was 47 per cent. We found few significant differences in perceived access, satisfaction, and utilization. Both HMO adults and children more often perceived good geographic access (adults, OR, [CI] = 1.50, [1.04-2.16]; children, OR, [CI] = 1.773 [1.158, 2.716]). But HMO patients less often reported good after-hours access (adults, OR, [CI] = 0.527 [0.335, 0.830]; children, OR, [CI] = 0.583 [0.380, 0.894]). Among all patients reporting poorer function, HMO patients more often reported good general and preventive care (OR, [CI] = 2.735 [1.138, 6.575]). We found some differences between Medicaid HMO versus PCCM recipients' reported access, satisfaction, and utilization, but were unable to validate concerns about access and quality under more restrictive forms of Medicaid managed care.
两种形式的医疗补助管理医疗的访问、满意度和利用率。
我们确定了2598名弗吉尼亚州医疗补助计划接受者的访问和满意度,比较了其健康维护组织(HMOs)和初级保健病例管理(PCCM)计划。积极的反应被总结为获取、满意度或利用率的子域,并计算HMO(相对于PCCM)子域得分的调整优势比。回复率为47%。我们发现在感知访问、满意度和利用率方面几乎没有显著差异。HMO成人和儿童更常认为地理位置优越(成人,OR, [CI] = 1.50, [1.04-2.16];儿童,OR, [CI] = 1.773[1.158, 2.716])。但HMO患者较少报告良好的小时后访问(成人,OR, [CI] = 0.527 [0.335, 0.830];儿童,OR, [CI] = 0.583[0.380, 0.894])。在所有报告功能较差的患者中,HMO患者更多地报告了良好的一般和预防性护理(OR, [CI] = 2.735[1.138, 6.575])。我们发现在医疗补助HMO和PCCM接受者报告的可获得性、满意度和利用率方面存在一些差异,但无法验证在医疗补助管理医疗的更严格形式下对可获得性和质量的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信