BACKGROUND: Comparing health outcomes with adequate methodology is central to performance assessments of health care systems. We compared the Medicare Advantage Program (MAP) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with regard to changes in health status and mortality. METHODS: We used the Death-Master-File for vital status and the Short-Form 36 to determine physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at baseline and at 2 years. We compared the probability of being alive with the same or better (than would be expected by chance) PCS (or MCS) at 2 years and mortality, while adjusting for case-mix. Given the geographic variations in MAP enrollment, we did a regional sub-analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the probability of being alive with the same or better PCS except for the South (VHA 65.8% vs. MAP 62.5%, P = .0014). VHA patients had a slightly higher probability than MAP patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (71.8% vs. 70.1%, P = .002) but no significant regional variations. The hazard ratios for mortality in the MAP were higher than in the VHA across all regions. CONCLUSION: With the use of appropriate methodology, we found small differences in 2-year health outcomes that favor the VHA.
BACKGROUND: Comparing health outcomes with adequate methodology is central to performance assessments of health care systems. We compared the Medicare Advantage Program (MAP) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with regard to changes in health status and mortality. METHODS: We used the Death-Master-File for vital status and the Short-Form 36 to determine physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at baseline and at 2 years. We compared the probability of being alive with the same or better (than would be expected by chance) PCS (or MCS) at 2 years and mortality, while adjusting for case-mix. Given the geographic variations in MAP enrollment, we did a regional sub-analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the probability of being alive with the same or better PCS except for the South (VHA 65.8% vs. MAP 62.5%, P = .0014). VHA patients had a slightly higher probability than MAP patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (71.8% vs. 70.1%, P = .002) but no significant regional variations. The hazard ratios for mortality in the MAP were higher than in the VHA across all regions. CONCLUSION: With the use of appropriate methodology, we found small differences in 2-year health outcomes that favor the VHA.
Authors: Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carol M Moinpour; Timothy J Moynihan; Donald L Patrick; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: William B Weeks; Lewis E Kazis; Yujing Shen; Zhongxiao Cong; Xinhua S Ren; Donald Miller; Austin Lee; Jonathan B Perlin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Alfredo J Selim; Lewis E Kazis; William Rogers; Shirley Qian; James A Rothendler; Austin Lee; Xinhua S Ren; Samuel C Haffer; Russ Mardon; Donald Miller; Avron Spiro; Bernardo J Selim; Benjamin G Fincke Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Claire O'Hanlon; Christina Huang; Elizabeth Sloss; Rebecca Anhang Price; Peter Hussey; Carrie Farmer; Courtney Gidengil Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alfredo J Selim; Dan Berlowitz; Lewis E Kazis; William Rogers; Steven M Wright; Shirley X Qian; James A Rothendler; Avron Spiro; Donald Miller; Bernardo J Selim; Benjamin G Fincke Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Elizabeth B Lamont; Mary Beth Landrum; Nancy L Keating; Laura Archer; Lan Lan; Gary M Strauss; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Harvey B Niell; L Herbert Maurer; Michael P Kosty; Antonius A Miller; Gerald H Clamon; Anthony D Elias; Edward F McClay; Everett E Vokes; Barbara J McNeil Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nabil Natafgi; Matthew Nattinger; Patience Ugwi; Fred Ullrich; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 2.655