Literature DB >> 1863030

Comparison of the quality of ambulatory care for fee-for-service and prepaid patients.

I S Udvarhelyi1, K Jennison, R S Phillips, A M Epstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quality of care for common ambulatory conditions is adversely affected when physicians are provided with incentives to limit the use of health services.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study over a 2-year period.
SETTING: Four group practices that cared for both fee-for-service patients and prepaid patients within a network model health maintenance organization (HMO). PATIENTS: Equal numbers of prepaid (HMO) and fee-for-service patients were selected by randomly choosing medical records from each group practice: 246 patients with chronic uncomplicated hypertension and 250 women without chronic diseases who received preventive care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adequate hypertension control was defined as a mean blood pressure of less than 150/90. Adequate preventive care was defined as the provision of blood pressure screening, colon cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and cervical cancer screening within guidelines recommended by the 1989 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Resource use was measured by the annual number of visits and tests. MAIN
RESULTS: The adjusted relative odds of HMO patients having controlled hypertension, compared with fee-for-service patients, were 1.82 (95% CI, 1.02 to 3.27). The relative risks of HMO patients receiving preventive care within established guidelines were 1.19 (CI, 0.93 to 1.51) for colon cancer screening, 1.78 (CI, 1.11 to 2.84) for annual breast examinations, 1.75 (CI, 1.08 to 2.84) for biannual mammography, and 1.35 (CI, 1.13 to 1.60) for Papanicolaou smears every 3 years. Prepaid patients had visit rates that were 18% to 22% higher than those of fee-for-service patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In the type of network model HMO we studied, the quality and quantity of ambulatory care for HMO patients was equal to or better than that for fee-for-service patients. In this setting, the incentives for physicians to limit resource use may be offset by lack of disincentives for HMO patients to seek care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1863030     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-5-394

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  8 in total

1.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? 1998.

Authors:  Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Robert H Brook
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Data envelopment analysis to determine efficiencies of health maintenance organizations.

Authors:  K Siddharthan; M Ahern; R Rosenman
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2000-01

3.  Managed care and chronic illness: health services research needs.

Authors:  E H Wagner
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  A longitudinal study of hospitalization rates for patients with chronic disease: results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  E C Nelson; C A McHorney; W G Manning; W H Rogers; M Zubkoff; S Greenfield; J E Ware; A R Tarlov
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  How do HMOs achieve savings? The effectiveness of one organization's strategies.

Authors:  A B Flood; A M Fremont; K Jin; D M Bott; J Ding; R C Parker
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Managed care, access to specialists, and outcomes among primary care patients with pain.

Authors:  David E Grembowski; Diane Martin; Paula Diehr; Donald L Patrick; Barbara Williams; Louise Novak; Richard Deyo; Wayne Katon; Deborah Dickstein; Ruth Engelberg; Harold Goldberg
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  U.S. Healthcare's quality-based compensation model.

Authors:  N A Hanchak; N Schlackman; S Harmon-Weiss
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  1996

Review 8.  The influence of health systems on hypertension awareness, treatment, and control: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Will Maimaris; Jared Paty; Pablo Perel; Helena Legido-Quigley; Dina Balabanova; Robby Nieuwlaat; Martin McKee
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 11.069

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.