Literature DB >> 10098564

Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.

K L Carman1, P F Short, D O Farley, J A Schnaier, D B Elliott, P M Gallagher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) was developed to provide an integrated set of tested, standardized surveys to obtain meaningful information from health plan enrollees and their experiences. Many organizations began to implement CAHPS in 1997. Formal evaluations of the experiences of three demonstration sites with implementing CAHPS (ie, process evaluations) and the impact of CAHPS on consumer's choices (ie, outcome evaluations) were conducted. This article reports on the early findings and feedback from our process evaluations about the sites' experiences with using CAHPS. Results are presented from the first round demonstration sites, including the lessons learned during the demonstrations. Our plans for future demonstrations and evaluations are included.
METHODS: A similar evaluation design and instruments were used across demonstration sites. The process evaluation to monitor program intervention included on-site interviews, off-site review of documents, and focus groups with consumers.
RESULTS: There are 4 early results from the CAHPS demonstrations: (1) the CAHPS survey covers topics of importance to sponsors, is of reasonable length, and can be administered quickly; (2) the report templates are being used effectively, but sponsors vary widely in their preferences for summarizing and presenting CAHPS ratings; (3) standardized or off-the-shelf products are aspects of CAHPS that sponsors value highly, while emphasizing need for further development; and (4) because surveys like CAHPS require multiple within-plan samples to make plan comparisons, they require a substantial investment and may be affordable only for large sponsors.
CONCLUSION: The first round CAHPS demonstrations highlighted the strengths of the integrated surveys and the areas for improving the products and the implementation process.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10098564

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection?

Authors:  M Spranca; D E Kanouse; M Elliott; P F Short; D O Farley; R D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public.

Authors:  E C Schneider; T Lieberman
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-06

3.  Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey.

Authors:  J Lee Hargraves; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  Strengthening research to improve the practice and management of long-term care.

Authors:  Penny Hollander Feldman; Robert L Kane
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 5.  Improving the quality of long-term care with better information.

Authors:  Vincent Mor
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  Assessment of medicare part d communications to beneficiaries.

Authors:  Meghana Aruru; J Warren Salmon
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2010-09

7.  Do patient experiences on priority aspects of health care predict their global rating of quality of care? A study in five patient groups.

Authors:  Dolf de Boer; Diana Delnoij; Jany Rademakers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 8.  Medical homes: challenges in translating theory into practice.

Authors:  Emily Carrier; Marc N Gourevitch; Nirav R Shah
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The PedsQL 4.0 as a school population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity.

Authors:  James W Varni; Tasha M Burwinkle; Michael Seid
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Do patient and practice characteristics confound age-group differences in preferences for general practice care? A quantitative study.

Authors:  Willemijn A de Graaf-Ruizendaal; Annette J Berendsen; Dolf de Boer; Dinny H de Bakker
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.