Literature DB >> 16899002

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

Robin R Gillies1, Kate Eresian Chenok, Stephen M Shortell, Gregory Pawlson, Julian J Wimbush.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16899002      PMCID: PMC1797097          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00529.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  25 in total

1.  Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action.

Authors:  E H Wagner; B T Austin; C Davis; M Hindmarsh; J Schaefer; A Bonomi
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Health plan quality-of-care information is undermined by voluntary reporting.

Authors:  Joseph W Thompson; Sathiska D Pinidiya; Kevin W Ryan; Elizabeth D McKinley; Shannon Alston; James E Bost; Jessica Briefer French; Pippa Simpson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Benefits of and barriers to large medical group practice in the United States.

Authors:  Lawrence P Casalino; Kelly J Devers; Timothy K Lake; Marie Reed; Jeffrey J Stoddard
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2003-09-08

5.  Do commercial managed care members rate their health plans differently than Medicaid managed care members?

Authors:  Patrick J Roohan; Scott J Franko; Joseph P Anarella; Laura K Dellehunt; Foster C Gesten
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Competition in health care: it takes systems to pursue quality and efficiency.

Authors:  Alain C Enthoven; Laura A Tollen
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Jul-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Relationship between low quality-of-care scores and HMOs' subsequent public disclosure of quality-of-care scores.

Authors:  Danny McCormick; David U Himmelstein; Steffie Woolhandler; Sidney M Wolfe; David H Bor
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-09-25       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: the content, quality, and accessibility of care.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health outcomes and satisfaction with care.

Authors:  Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  External incentives, information technology, and organized processes to improve health care quality for patients with chronic diseases.

Authors:  Lawrence Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Julie A Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; James C Robinson; Thomas Rundall; Nancy Oswald; Helen Schauffler; Margaret C Wang
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Provider and systems factors in diabetes quality of care.

Authors:  Kimia Ghaznavi; Shaista Malik
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Generalizability of epidemiological findings and public health decisions: an illustration from the Rochester Epidemiology Project.

Authors:  Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Cynthia L Leibson; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Preventive Care Quality of Medicare Accountable Care Organizations: Associations of Organizational Characteristics With Performance.

Authors:  Benjamin B Albright; Valerie A Lewis; Joseph S Ross; Carrie H Colla
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Rejoinder to taxonomy of health networks and systems: a reassessment.

Authors:  Gloria J Bazzoli; Stephen M Shortell; Nicole L Dubbs
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Use of preventive care by elderly male veterans receiving care through the Veterans Health Administration, Medicare fee-for-service, and Medicare HMO plans.

Authors:  Salomeh Keyhani; Joseph S Ross; Paul Hebert; Cornelia Dellenbaugh; Joan D Penrod; Albert L Siu
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 6.  Ten key principles for successful health systems integration.

Authors:  Esther Suter; Nelly D Oelke; Carol E Adair; Gail D Armitage
Journal:  Healthc Q       Date:  2009

Review 7.  Hospital-physician collaboration: landscape of economic integration and impact on clinical integration.

Authors:  Lawton Robert Burns; Ralph W Muller
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.911

8.  Understanding variations in Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems scores: California as an example.

Authors:  Donna O Farley; Marc N Elliott; Amelia M Haviland; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Amy Heller
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Asian American women in California: a pooled analysis of predictors for breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Neetu Chawla; Nancy Breen; Benmei Liu; Richard Lee; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Organizational and market influences on physician performance on patient experience measures.

Authors:  Hector P Rodriguez; Ted von Glahn; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.