Understanding variations in Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems scores: California as an example
- PMID: 21644970
- PMCID: PMC3207197
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01279.x
Understanding variations in Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems scores: California as an example
Abstract
Objective: To understand reasons why California has lower Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) scores than the rest of the country, including differing patterns of CAHPS scores between Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service, effects of additional demographic characteristics of beneficiaries, and variation across MA plans within California.
Study design/data collection: Using 2008 CAHPS survey data for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and MA members, we compared mean case mix adjusted Medicare CAHPS scores for California and the remainder of the nation.
Principal findings: California fee-for-service Medicare had lower scores than non-California fee-for-service on 11 of 14 CAHPS measures; California MA had lower scores only for physician services measures and higher scores for other measures. Adding race/ethnicity and urbanity to risk adjustment improved California standing for all measures in both MA and fee-for-service. Within the MA plans, one large plan accounted for the positive performance in California MA; other California plans performed below national averages.
Conclusions: This study shows that the mix of fee-for-service and MA enrollees, demographic characteristics of populations, and plan-specific factors can all play a role in observed regional variations. Anticipating value-based payments, further study of successful MA plans could generate lessons for enhancing patient experience for the Medicare population.
© Health Research and Educational Trust.
Similar articles
-
Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Performance on Clinical Quality and Patient Experience Measures: Comparisons from Three Large States.Health Serv Res. 2017 Dec;52(6):2038-2060. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12787. Health Serv Res. 2017. PMID: 29130269 Free PMC article.
-
Market variations in intensity of Medicare service use and beneficiary experiences with care.Health Serv Res. 2010 Jun;45(3):647-69. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01108.x. Epub 2010 Apr 6. Health Serv Res. 2010. PMID: 20403055 Free PMC article.
-
Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?Health Serv Res. 2021 Jun;56(3):517-527. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13620. Epub 2021 Jan 13. Health Serv Res. 2021. PMID: 33442869 Free PMC article.
-
How do the experiences of Medicare beneficiary subgroups differ between managed care and original Medicare?Health Serv Res. 2011 Aug;46(4):1039-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01245.x. Epub 2011 Feb 9. Health Serv Res. 2011. PMID: 21306370 Free PMC article.
-
Medicare in the 21 st Century: Understanding the Program to Promote Improvements.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024 May 15;32(10):427-438. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00464. Epub 2024 Apr 9. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024. PMID: 38595137 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun 3;7(6):e2415058. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15058. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 38837157 Free PMC article.
-
The association between Asian patient race/ethnicity and lower satisfaction scores.BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jul 22;20(1):678. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05534-6. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020. PMID: 32698825 Free PMC article.
-
A Review of Best Practices for Monitoring and Improving Inpatient Pediatric Patient Experiences.Hosp Pediatr. 2020 Mar;10(3):277-285. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0243. Epub 2020 Feb 18. Hosp Pediatr. 2020. PMID: 32071119 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Variation in Family Experience of Pediatric Inpatient Care As Measured by Child HCAHPS.Pediatrics. 2017 Apr;139(4):e20163372. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3372. Epub 2017 Mar 22. Pediatrics. 2017. PMID: 28330970 Free PMC article.
-
Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug;52(4):1310-1329. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12544. Epub 2016 Aug 8. Health Serv Res. 2017. PMID: 27500888 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010. “Instructions for Analyzing CAHPS Data,” p. 5 [accessed on accessed December 17, 2010]. Available at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/cahpskit/files/2015_Instructions_for_Analyzin.... - PubMed
-
- Ahern M, Molinari C. Impact of HMO Ownership on Management Processes and Utilization Outcomes. American Journal of Managed Care. 2001;7(5):489–97. - PubMed
-
- Baicker K, Chandra A. Medicare Spending, the PhysicianWorkforce, and Beneficiaries' Quality of Care. Health Affairs. 2004;W4:184–97. - PubMed
-
- Butler MA, Beale CL. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes for Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1993 (Staff Report No. 9425) Washington, DC: Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1994.
-
- California Health Care Foundation. California Medicare HMOs: Declining Benefits and Rising Costs. Oakland, CA: California Health Care Foundation; 2003.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
