OBJECTIVES: To compare the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with regard to health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: The Medicare Health Outcome Survey, the 1999 Large Health Survey of Veteran Enrollees, and the Ambulatory Care Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. EXTRACTION METHODS: Men 65+ receiving care in MA (N=198,421) or in VHA (N=360,316). We compared the risk-adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at 2-years follow-up. We computed hazard ratio (HR) for 2-year mortality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Veterans had a higher adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better PCS compared with MA participants (VHA 69.2 versus MA 63.6 percent, p<.001). VHA patients had a higher adjusted probability than MA patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (76.1 versus 69.6 percent, p<.001). The HRs for mortality in the MA were higher than in the VHA (HR, 1.26 [95 percent CI 1.23-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the VHA has better patient outcomes than the private managed care plans in Medicare. The VHA's performance offers encouragement that the public sector can both finance and provide exemplary health care.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with regard to health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: The Medicare Health Outcome Survey, the 1999 Large Health Survey of Veteran Enrollees, and the Ambulatory Care Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. EXTRACTION METHODS:Men 65+ receiving care in MA (N=198,421) or in VHA (N=360,316). We compared the risk-adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) health at 2-years follow-up. We computed hazard ratio (HR) for 2-year mortality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Veterans had a higher adjusted probability of being alive with the same or better PCS compared with MA participants (VHA 69.2 versus MA 63.6 percent, p<.001). VHA patients had a higher adjusted probability than MA patients of being alive with the same or better MCS (76.1 versus 69.6 percent, p<.001). The HRs for mortality in the MA were higher than in the VHA (HR, 1.26 [95 percent CI 1.23-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the VHA has better patient outcomes than the private managed care plans in Medicare. The VHA's performance offers encouragement that the public sector can both finance and provide exemplary health care.
Authors: Harvey Jay Cohen; John R Feussner; Morris Weinberger; Molly Carnes; Ronald C Hamdy; Frank Hsieh; Ciaran Phibbs; Donald Courtney; Kenneth W Lyles; Conrad May; Cynthia McMurtry; Leslye Pennypacker; David M Smith; Nina Ainslie; Thomas Hornick; Kayla Brodkin; Philip Lavori Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K R Lorig; P Ritter; A L Stewart; D S Sobel; B W Brown; A Bandura; V M Gonzalez; D D Laurent; H R Holman Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Lewis E Kazis; Karon F Cook; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Susan T Crowley; Srinivasan Beddhu; Joline L T Chen; John T Daugirdas; David S Goldfarb; Anna Jin; Csaba P Kovesdy; David J Leehey; Hamid Moradi; Sankar D Navaneethan; Keith C Norris; Yoshitsugu Obi; Ann O'Hare; Tariq Shafi; Elani Streja; Mark L Unruh; Tushar J Vachharajani; Steven Weisbord; Connie M Rhee Journal: Semin Dial Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 3.455
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: J Michael McWilliams; Jesse B Dalton; Mary Beth Landrum; Austin B Frakt; Steven D Pizer; Nancy L Keating Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul L Hebert; Adam S Batten; Eric Gunnink; Ashok Reddy; Edwin S Wong; Stephan D Fihn; Chuan-Fen Liu Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Vinay Kini; Fenton H McCarthy; Sheeva Rajaei; Andrew J Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Laura J Chavez; Chuan-Fen Liu; Nathan Tefft; Paul L Hebert; Brendan J Clark; Anna D Rubinsky; Gwen T Lapham; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Joan J Ryoo; Diana L Ordin; Anna Liza M Antonio; Sabine M Oishi; Michael K Gould; Steven M Asch; Jennifer L Malin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dan R Berlowitz; Capri G Foy; Lewis E Kazis; Linda P Bolin; Molly B Conroy; Peter Fitzpatrick; Tanya R Gure; Paul L Kimmel; Kent Kirchner; Donald E Morisky; Jill Newman; Christine Olney; Suzanne Oparil; Nicholas M Pajewski; James Powell; Thomas Ramsey; Debra L Simmons; Joni Snyder; Mark A Supiano; Daniel E Weiner; Jeff Whittle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Emily C Dore; Molly Marino; Pengsheng Ni; Julieta Lomelin-Gascon; Lily Sonis; Flor Amaya; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Alan M Jette; Lewis E Kazis Journal: Burns Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.609