Audrey L Jones1,2, Michael J Fine3,4, Roslyn A Stone3,5, Shasha Gao3, Leslie R M Hausmann3,4, Kelly H Burkitt3, Peter A Taber6, Galen E Switzer3,4,7, Chester B Good3,4,8, Megan E Vanneman6,9,10, Susan L Zickmund6,9. 1. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center (IDEAS), Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Audrey.Jones3@va.gov. 2. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Audrey.Jones3@va.gov. 3. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center (IDEAS), Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 8. Center for Value Based Pharmacy Initiatives, UPMC Health Plan, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 10. Division of Health System Innovation and Research, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (i.e., "Choice") allows eligible Veterans to receive covered health care outside the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. The initial implementation of Choice was challenging, and use was limited in the first year. OBJECTIVE: To assess satisfaction with Choice, and identify reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction during its early implementation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews from July to September 2015 with Choice-eligible Veterans from 25 VA facilities across the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Satisfaction was assessed with 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. We compared ratings of satisfaction with Choice and VA health care, and identified reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Choice in a thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 195 participants, 35 had not attempted to use Choice; 43 attempted but had not received Choice care (i.e., attempted only); and 117 attempted and received Choice care. Among those who attempted only, a smaller percentage were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice than with VA health care (17.9% and 71.8%, p < 0.001); among participants who received Choice, similar percentages were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice and VA health care (66.6% and 71.1%, p = 0.45). When asked what contributed to Choice ratings, participants who attempted but did not receive Choice care reported poor access (50%), scheduling problems (20%), and care coordination issues (10%); participants who received Choice care reported improved access (27%), good quality of care (19%), and good distance to Choice provider (16%). Regardless of receipt of Choice care, most participants expressed interest in using Choice in the future (70-82%). CONCLUSIONS: Access and scheduling barriers contributed to dissatisfaction for Veterans unsuccessfully attempting to use Choice during its initial implementation, whereas improved access and good care contributed to satisfaction for those receiving Choice care. With Veterans' continued interest in using services outside VA facilities, subsequent policy changes should address Veterans' barriers to care.
BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (i.e., "Choice") allows eligible Veterans to receive covered health care outside the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. The initial implementation of Choice was challenging, and use was limited in the first year. OBJECTIVE: To assess satisfaction with Choice, and identify reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction during its early implementation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews from July to September 2015 with Choice-eligible Veterans from 25 VA facilities across the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Satisfaction was assessed with 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. We compared ratings of satisfaction with Choice and VA health care, and identified reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Choice in a thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative data. RESULTS: Of 195 participants, 35 had not attempted to use Choice; 43 attempted but had not received Choice care (i.e., attempted only); and 117 attempted and received Choice care. Among those who attempted only, a smaller percentage were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice than with VA health care (17.9% and 71.8%, p < 0.001); among participants who received Choice, similar percentages were somewhat/very satisfied with Choice and VA health care (66.6% and 71.1%, p = 0.45). When asked what contributed to Choice ratings, participants who attempted but did not receive Choice care reported poor access (50%), scheduling problems (20%), and care coordination issues (10%); participants who received Choice care reported improved access (27%), good quality of care (19%), and good distance to Choice provider (16%). Regardless of receipt of Choice care, most participants expressed interest in using Choice in the future (70-82%). CONCLUSIONS: Access and scheduling barriers contributed to dissatisfaction for Veterans unsuccessfully attempting to use Choice during its initial implementation, whereas improved access and good care contributed to satisfaction for those receiving Choice care. With Veterans' continued interest in using services outside VA facilities, subsequent policy changes should address Veterans' barriers to care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Veterans; Veterans Choice Program; patient satisfaction; qualitative research
Authors: Megan E Vanneman; Alex H S Harris; Steven M Asch; Winifred J Scott; Samantha S Murrell; Todd H Wagner Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Erin P Finley; Polly H Noël; Michael Mader; Elizabeth Haro; Nancy Bernardy; Craig S Rosen; Mary Bollinger; Hector Garcia; Kathleen Sherrieb; Mary Jo V Pugh Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Eliana Sullivan; Whitney E Zahnd; Jane M Zhu; Erin Kenzie; Mary Patzel; Melinda Davis Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Allison A Lewinski; Matthew J Crowley; Christopher Miller; Hayden B Bosworth; George L Jackson; Karen Steinhauser; Courtney White-Clark; Felicia McCant; Leah L Zullig Journal: Med Care Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.178
Authors: Kristin M Mattocks; A Rani Elwy; Elizabeth M Yano; Justin Giovannelli; Michael Adelberg; Michelle A Mengeling; Kristin J Cunningham; Kameron L Matthews Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Stephen W Waldo; Thomas J Glorioso; Anna E Barón; Jacob A Doll; Mary E Plomondon; P Michael Ho Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.106