Mary Bollinger1,2, Jeff Pyne3,4, Anthony Goudie5,6, Xiaotong Han3,4, Teresa J Hudson3,4, Joseph W Thompson5,6. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Health Services Research, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. MJBollinger@uams.edu. 2. Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR, USA. MJBollinger@uams.edu. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Center for Health Services Research, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 4. Center for Mental Healthcare and Outcomes Research, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR, USA. 5. Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI), Little Rock, AR, USA. 6. Department of Health Policy and Management, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient ratings of their healthcare experience as a quality measure have become critically important since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA enabled states to expand Medicaid eligibility to reduce uninsurance nationally. Arkansas gained approval to use Medicaid funds to purchase a qualified health plan (QHP) through the ACA marketplace for newly eligible beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: We compare patient-reported satisfaction between fee-for-service Medicaid and QHP participants. DESIGN: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) was used to identify differences in Medicaid and QHP enrollee healthcare experiences. Data were analyzed using a regression discontinuity design. PARTICIPANTS: Newly eligible Medicaid expansion participants enrolled in Medicaid during 2013 completed the Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey in 2014. Survey data was analyzed for 3156 participants (n = 1759 QHP/1397 Medicaid). MEASURES: Measures included rating of personal and specialist provider, rating of all healthcare received, and whether the provider offered to communicate electronically. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the enrollees were controlled for in the analyses. METHODS: Regression-discontinuity analysis was used to evaluate differential program effects on positive ratings as measured by the CAHPS survey while controlling for demographic and health characteristics of participants. KEY RESULTS: Adjusted logistic regression models for overall healthcare (OR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.56-0.90, p = 0.004) and personal doctor (OR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.53-0.87, p = 0.002) predicted greater satisfaction among QHP versus Medicaid participants. Results were not significant for specialists or for use of electronic communication with provider. CONCLUSIONS: Using a quasi-experimental statistical approach, we were able to control for observed and unobserved heterogeneity showing that among participants with similar characteristics, including income, QHP participants rated their personal providers and healthcare higher than those enrolled in Medicaid. Access to care, utilization of care, and healthcare and health insurance literacy may be contributing factors to these results.
BACKGROUND: Patient ratings of their healthcare experience as a quality measure have become critically important since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA enabled states to expand Medicaid eligibility to reduce uninsurance nationally. Arkansas gained approval to use Medicaid funds to purchase a qualified health plan (QHP) through the ACA marketplace for newly eligible beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: We compare patient-reported satisfaction between fee-for-service Medicaid and QHP participants. DESIGN: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) was used to identify differences in Medicaid and QHP enrollee healthcare experiences. Data were analyzed using a regression discontinuity design. PARTICIPANTS: Newly eligible Medicaid expansion participants enrolled in Medicaid during 2013 completed the Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey in 2014. Survey data was analyzed for 3156 participants (n = 1759 QHP/1397 Medicaid). MEASURES: Measures included rating of personal and specialist provider, rating of all healthcare received, and whether the provider offered to communicate electronically. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the enrollees were controlled for in the analyses. METHODS: Regression-discontinuity analysis was used to evaluate differential program effects on positive ratings as measured by the CAHPS survey while controlling for demographic and health characteristics of participants. KEY RESULTS: Adjusted logistic regression models for overall healthcare (OR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.56-0.90, p = 0.004) and personal doctor (OR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.53-0.87, p = 0.002) predicted greater satisfaction among QHP versus Medicaid participants. Results were not significant for specialists or for use of electronic communication with provider. CONCLUSIONS: Using a quasi-experimental statistical approach, we were able to control for observed and unobserved heterogeneity showing that among participants with similar characteristics, including income, QHP participants rated their personal providers and healthcare higher than those enrolled in Medicaid. Access to care, utilization of care, and healthcare and health insurance literacy may be contributing factors to these results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Affordable Care Act; patient satisfaction; quality of care
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Peter J Joski; Edmund R Becker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; William G Lehrman; Lise Rybowski; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Daniel Polsky; Michael Richards; Simon Basseyn; Douglas Wissoker; Genevieve M Kenney; Stephen Zuckerman; Karin V Rhodes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephanie MacLeod; Shirley Musich; Stephen Gulyas; Yan Cheng; Rifky Tkatch; Diane Cempellin; Gandhi R Bhattarai; Kevin Hawkins; Charlotte S Yeh Journal: Geriatr Nurs Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 2.361
Authors: Mita Sanghavi Goel; Tiffany L Brown; Adam Williams; Romana Hasnain-Wynia; Jason A Thompson; David W Baker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Paul D Cleary; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-11-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Simon Basseyn; Brendan Saloner; Genevieve M Kenney; Douglas Wissoker; Daniel Polsky; Karin V Rhodes Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.983