The influence of patient characteristics on ratings of managed behavioral health care

Despite current emphasis on consumer-based performance measures, little is known about factors that influence consumer ratings of behavioral health care. This study examines the influence of patient characteristics, health care use, and insurance coverage on patients' ratings of their managed behavioral health care in both commercial and public plans. Older and healthier patients rated their behavioral health care and health plan more highly than did other patients. Patients with less education and those whose insurance paid all costs of care gave consistently higher plan ratings. Women and frequent users enrolled in commercial plans gave more positive care ratings. After adjusting for enrollee characteristics and coverage, there were no differences between ratings of patients in commercial and public plans. These results are consistent with other research that illustrates the importance of adjusting health care ratings for patient characteristics when comparing plans.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.     

Measuring the "managedness" and covered benefits of health plans

STUDY AIMS: (1) To develop indexes measuring the degree of managedness and the covered benefits of health insurance plans, (2) to describe the variation in these indexes among plans in one health insurance market, (3) to assess the validity of the health plan indexes, and (4) to examine the association between patient characteristics and the health plan indexes. Measures of the "managedness" and covered benefits of health plans are requisite for studying the effects of managed care on clinical practice and health system performance, and they may improve people's understanding of our complex health care system. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: As part of our larger Physician Referral Study, we collected health insurance information for 189 insurance product lines and 755 products in the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, which we linked with the study's data for 2,277 patients recruited in local primary care offices. STUDY DESIGN: Managed care and benefit variables were constructed through content analysis of health plan information. Principal component analysis of the variables produced a managedness index, an in-network benefits index, and an out-of-network benefits index. Bivariable analyses examined associations between patient characteristics and the three indexes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From the managed care variables, we constructed three provider-oriented indexes for the financial, utilization management, and network domains of health plans. From these, we constructed a single managedness index, which correlated as expected with the individual measures, with the domain indexes, with plan type (FFS, PPO, POS, HMO), with independent assessments of local experts, and with patients' attitudes about their health insurance. For benefits, we constructed an in-network benefits index and an out-of-network benefits index, which were correlated with the managedness index. The personal characteristics of study patients were associated with the managed care and benefit indexes. Study patients in more managed plans reported somewhat better health than patients in less managed plans. CONCLUSIONS: Indexes of the managedness and benefits of health plans can be constructed from publicly available information. The managedness and benefit indexes are associated with the personal characteristics and health status of study patients. Potential uses of the managed care and benefits indexes are discussed.     

Case-mix adjustment of consumer reports about managed behavioral health care and health plans

Objective

To develop a model for adjusting patients'' reports of behavioral health care experiences on the Experience of Care and Health Outcomes (ECHO™) survey to allow for fair comparisons across health plans.

Data Source

Survey responses from 4,068 individuals enrolled in 21 managed behavioral health plans who received behavioral health care within the previous year (response rate=48 percent).

Study Design

Potential case-mix adjustors were evaluated by combining information about their predictive power and the amount of within- and between-plan variability. Changes in plan scores and rankings due to case-mix adjustment were quantified.

Principal Findings

The final case-mix adjustment model included self-reported mental health status, self-reported general health status, alcohol/drug treatment, age, education, and race/ethnicity. The impact of adjustment on plan report scores was modest, but large enough to change some plan rankings.

Conclusions

Adjusting plan report scores on the ECHO survey for differences in patient characteristics had modest effects, but still may be important to maintain the credibility of patient reports as a quality metric. Differences between those with self-reported fair/poor health compared with those in excellent/very good health varied by plan, suggesting quality differences associated with health status and underscoring the importance of collecting quality information.     

Measuring the physician perspective on quality of care in health plans

Physicians provide one source of information about the quality of care in health plans, but concerns exist that physicians cannot distinguish quality from financial considerations or other underlying attitudes. We examined whether physicians can (a) distinguish different domains of health plan quality and (b) distinguish health plan quality from their underlying attitudes. We analyzed data on 419 generalist physicians from four health plans. Three scales assessed physicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to high-quality care in the plans and the clinical capabilities of plan physicians. Structural equation modeling indicated that physicians could distinguish domains of health plan quality. Physicians could also distinguish plan quality from their attitudes toward the plan, but plan quality was more highly correlated with general managed care attitudes than expected. These data suggest that physicians can provide information about health plan quality, but it will be important to validate these measures against patient outcomes.     

Does managed care restrictiveness affect the perceived quality of primary care? A report from ASPN. Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network

BACKGROUND: The competitive managed care marketplace is causing increased restrictiveness in the structure of health plans. The effect of plan restrictiveness on the delivery of primary care is unknown. Our purpose was to examine the association of the organizational and financial restrictiveness of managed care plans with important elements of primary care, the patient-clinician relationship, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 15 member practices of the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network selected to represent diverse health care markets. Each practice completed a Managed Care Survey to characterize the degree of organizational and financial restrictiveness for each individual health care plan. A total of 199 managed care plans were characterized. Then, 1475 consecutive outpatients completed a patient survey that included: the Components of Primary Care Instrument as a measure of attributes of primary care; a measure of the amount of inconvenience involved with using the health care plan; and the Medical Outcomes Study Visit Rating Form for assessing patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Clinicians' reports of inconvenience were significantly associated (P < .001) with the financial and organizational restrictiveness scores of the plan. There was no association between plan restrictiveness and patient report of multiple aspects of the delivery of primary care or patient satisfaction with the visit. CONCLUSIONS: Plan restrictiveness is associated with greater perceived hassle for clinicians but not for patients. Plan restrictiveness seems to be creating great pressures for clinicians, but is not affecting patients' reports of the quality of important attributes of primary care or satisfaction with the visit. Physicians and their staffs appear to be buffering patients from the potentially negative effects of plan restrictiveness.     

Medicaid behavioral health care plan satisfaction and children's service utilization

This study examines associations between caregivers' satisfaction with children's Medicaid-funded behavioral health care plans and the likelihood that children with severe emotional disturbance receive mental health services. Data are from a multisite study of managed care versus fee-for-service (FFS) settings. In multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for demographic, environmental, site, and clinical characteristics, plan satisfaction was associated with greater likelihood of subsequent service use regardless of managed care versus FFS setting. Children in managed care plans were less likely to use intensive residential and non-traditional outpatient services. Efforts to increase plan satisfaction may encourage service use, consequently, improving children's behavioral health outcomes.     

Restrictions on provider access in health plans and socioeconomic status

OBJECTIVE: To model the socioeconomic determinants of restrictions on provider access and choices in health plans. DATA SOURCES: Data from the 1996-97 Community Tracking Study are used. Publicly available enrollee data including enrollee reports of health care plan characteristics are linked with restricted use data with insurer reports of health plan characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study. A mixed multinomial logit model is used to model the enrollees' choice between health plans, each plan being treated as a bundle of attributes formed from restrictions on provider access. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There are important differences between the enrollee responses and the insurer reports, which may be due to poor information dissemination on the part of health plans and/or lack of attention on the part of enrollees. There is no evidence of selection into plans with restrictive attributes on the basis of observed health status but there is evidence of selection on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender and other socioeconomic characteristics. Determinants of plan supply, i.e., employment characteristics, are the most important determinants of plan attribute choices. CONCLUSION: The finding suggests that plan designs optimized using "objective" knowledge and with the best intentions may not receive favorable reviews from enrollees because enrollees have different perceptions of these plans.     

Characteristics of health plans that treat psychiatric patients.

Nationally representative data regarding the organizational, financial, and procedural features of health plans in which psychiatric patients receive treatment indicate that fewer privately insured, Medicaid, and Medicare managed care enrollees receive care from a psychiatrist than is true for "nonmanaged" enrollees. Financial considerations were reported to adversely affect treatment for one-third of all patients. Although utilization management techniques and financial/resource constraints commonly applied to patients in both managed and nonmanaged plans, performance-based incentives were rare in nonmanaged plans. The traditional health plan categories provide limited information to identify salient plan characteristics and guide policy decisions regarding the provision of care.     

Do health plans influence quality of care?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative impact of physician groups and health plans on quality of care measures. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of receipt of preventive care services included in the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) among 10 758 patients representing 21 health maintenance organizations and 22 large provider groups in the San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, areas in 1997. Each patient was eligible for (at least) one of six HEDIS-measured services. Data identify whether or not the service was provided, the patient's health plan, and the provider group responsible for the care. We used logistic regression to examine variations across plans in HEDIS rates, and whether variations persist after controls for provider groups are included. SETTING: Patients from 21 health maintenance organizations serving San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, in 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast cancer screening, childhood immunizations, cervical cancer screening, diabetic retinal exam, prenatal care in the first trimester, and check-ups after delivery among patients for whom these services are appropriate. RESULTS: There are statistically significant differences across health plans in utilization rates for the six services examined. These differences are not substantially affected when we control for the provider group that cared for the patient. That is, controlling for provider group does not explain variations across plans, consistent with the view that health plans have an impact on HEDIS quality measures independent of the providers that they contract with. CONCLUSIONS: There are activities that plans can undertake which influence their HEDIS scores. On the face of it, these results suggest that plans can independently improve quality, in contrast to hypotheses that plans would be "too far" from patients to have an influence. Continued attention to collecting plan-level data is warranted. Further work should address other possible sources of variations in HEDIS scores, such as variability in the quality of plan administrative databases.     

Profit-seeking, corporate control, and the trustworthiness of health care organizations: assessments of health plan performance by their affiliated physicians

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative trustworthiness of nonprofit and for-profit health plans, using physician assessments to measure dimensions of plan performance that are difficult for consumers to evaluate. DATA SOURCE: A nationally representative sample of 1,621 physicians who responded to a special topics module of the 1998 Socioeconomic Monitoring System Survey (SMS), fielded by the American Medical Association. Physicians assessed various aspects of their primary managed care plan, defined as the plan in which they had the largest number of patients. STUDY DESIGN: Plan ownership was measured as the interaction of tax-exempt status (nonprofit versus for-profit) and corporate control (single state versus multistate health plans). Two sets of regression models are estimated. The dependent variables in the regressions are five measures of performance related to plan trustworthiness: two related to deceptive practices and three to dimensions of quality that are largely hidden from enrollees. The first set (baseline) models relate plan ownership to trustworthy practices, controlling for other characteristics of the plan, the marketplace for health insurance, and the physician respondents. The second (interactive) set of models examines how the magnitude of ownership-related differences in trustworthiness varies with the market share of nonprofit plans in each community. DATA COLLECTION: The 1998 SMS was fielded between April and September of 1998 by Westat Inc. The average time required for a completed interview was approximately 30 minutes. The overall response rate was 52.2 percent. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with more local nonprofit plans, for-profit plans affiliated with multistate corporations are consistently reported by their affiliated physicians to engage in practices associated with reduced trustworthiness. Nonprofit plans affiliated with multistate corporations have more physician-reported practices associated with trustworthiness than do for-profit corporate plans on four of five outcomes, but appear less trustworthy than locally controlled nonprofits on two of the five measures. The magnitude of these ownership-related differences declines as the market share of nonprofit plans rises: for two of the five measures, ownership-related differences in practices related to trustworthiness are entirely eliminated when the nonprofits enroll more than 30 percent of the local market. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of for-profit ownership and multistate corporate control appears to consistently and substantially reduce physician-reported measures related to the trustworthiness of health plans. Because this is the fastest growing form of managed care, these results raise concerns about further erosion of trust in American health care. Preserving a substantial market niche for nonprofit plans appears to reduce this erosion and should be considered by policymakers as a strategy for restoring trust in the health care system.     

Managed Care Quality of Care and Plan Choice in New York SCHIP

Objective. To examine whether low-income parents of children enrolled in the New York State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) choose managed care plans with better quality of care.
Data Sources. 2001 New York SCHIP evaluation data; 2001 New York State Managed Care Plan Performance Report; 2000 New York State Managed Care Enrollment Report.
Study Design. Each market was defined as a county. A final sample of 2,325 new enrollees was analyzed after excluding those in markets with only one SCHIP plan. Plan quality was measured using seven Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS) and three Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores. A conditional logit model was applied with plan and individual/family characteristics as covariates.
Principle Findings. There were 30 plans in the 45 defined markets. The choice probability increased 2.5 percentage points for each unit increase in the average CAHPS score, and the association was significantly larger in children with special health care needs. However, HEDIS did not show any statistically significant association with plan choice.
Conclusions. Low-income parents do choose managed care plans with higher CAHPS scores for their newly enrolled children, suggesting that overall quality could improve over time because of the dynamics of enrollment.     

Gender and patient satisfaction in managed care plans: analysis of the 1999 HEDIS/CAHPS 2.0H Adult Survey.

This paper investigates gender differences in satisfaction, and in the variables associated with satisfaction, using the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) adult questionnaire administered by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) as part of HEDIS 1999. Data represent 97,873 men and women enrolled in 206 commercial managed care plans nationwide. Mean plan-level gender differences in satisfaction measures are small, with no consistent pattern of one gender being more satisfied than the other. Controlling for health plan, member, utilization, and selected HEDIS performance indicators, health plan characteristics account for the largest proportion of variance explained in satisfaction. Not-for-profit status and lower turnover of primary care providers are stronger determinants of women's than men's satisfaction. We conclude that it can be useful to analyze CAHPS scores by gender to identify areas for quality improvement in women's health care.     

Who do you trust? Americans' perspectives on health care, 1997-2001

A turbulent backlash against managed care in the mid-1990s pitted consumers and health care providers against health plans in a struggle for control over medical decision making. New findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) Community Tracking Study Household Survey indicate consumer confidence in the system and trust in physicians increased slightly between 1997 and 2001, perhaps as a result of changes in laws and loosening of health plan restrictions. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence of continued public concern about the influence of health plans on medical decision making. For example, the level of trust in their physicians among people in fair or poor health has not increased, and more than 40 percent of privately insured Americans continue to believe their doctor is strongly influenced by health plan rules when deciding about their care.     

Who is enrolled in for-profit vs. nonprofit Medicare HMOs?

We compare the characteristics of enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit Medicare health plans using nationwide data from the 1996 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We find few differences in overall health status, limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs), or history of chronic disease. However, older Americans enrolled in for-profit plans are substantially poorer and less educated than those enrolled in nonprofit plans, are more likely to have joined their plan recently, and are more likely to have joined a plan with the expectation of reducing their out-of-pocket health care costs.     

Managed Care and Gender Disparities in Problematic Health Care Experiences

Objective. To determine whether gender differences in reports of problematic health care experiences are associated with characteristics of managed care.
Data Sources. The 2002 Yale Consumer Experiences Survey ( N =5,000), a nationally representative sample of persons over 18 years of age with private health insurance, Interstudy Competitive Edge HMO Industry Report 2001, Area Resource File 2002, and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals 2002.
Study Design. Independent and interactive effects of gender and managed care on reports of problematic health care experiences were modeled using weighted multivariate logistic regression.
Principal Findings. Women were significantly more likely to report problems with their health care compared with men, even after controlling for gendered differences in expectations about medical care. Gender disparities in problem reporting were larger in plans that used certain managed care techniques, but smaller in plans using other methods. Some health plan managed care practices, including closed networks of providers and gatekeepers to specialty care, were associated with greater problem reporting among women, while others, such as requirements for primary care providers, were associated with greater problem reporting among men. Markets with higher HMO competition and penetration were associated with greater problem reporting among women, but reduced problem reporting among men. Women reported more problems in states that had enacted regulations governing access to OB/GYNs, while men reported more problems in states with regulations allowing specialists to act as primary care providers in health plans.
Conclusions. There are nontrivial gender disparities in reports of problematic health care experiences. The differential consequences of managed care at both the plan and market levels explain a portion of these gender disparities in problem reporting.     

Physician use of disease management programs.

This paper examines differences in availability, use, and perceived usefulness of disease management programs as reported by generalist and specialist physicians functioning as primary care providers in health plans. Implications of these differences are discussed in terms of the three types of purchasers: private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid. The design is a cross-sectional mail and telephone mixed-mode survey. The data come from 23 health plans in five states (Florida, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington), including six metropolitan areas: Seattle, New York City, Miami, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Denver. The study participants are 1,244 generalist and specialist physicians who contracted with health plans as primary care providers. They were drawn from a 2001 mail and telephone survey of 2,105 generalist and 1,693 specialist physicians serving commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare patients. Physician responses about use of disease management for their patients in the health plan and how useful they thought it was were regressed on physician, physician organization, and physician-health plan relationship characteristics. While generalist physicians are likely to report having disease management programs available and using them, specialists vary greatly in their response to the disease management programs. In contrast to physicians associated with commercial plans, implementation of disease management programs among physicians associated with Medicaid plans varied across states. Primary care providers trained in generalist areas of practice are more likely than specialists functioning as primary care providers to report that disease management programs are available and to use them. They also find them more useful than do specialists.     

Clinicians as advocates: An exploratory study of responses to managed care by mental health professionals

Utilization review and other managed care techniques require that health care professionals assume new responsibilities as patient advocates. This article explores the extent to which characteristics of providers or their experiences with managed care practices predict the nature and extent of advocacy behavior. Interviews of 142 mental health providers revealed that experiences of harmful utilization review and norms of professionalism significantly predicted advocacy behavior. However, providers who were concerned about disaffiliation were less likely to challenge the plan directly but more likely to alter their presentation of the case to reviewers. Providers who believe that managed care plans retaliate against advocacy behavior appear to substitute covert advocacy for direct advocacy. These results are preliminary but suggest that providers condition their advocacy behavior in response to their experiences with and perceptions of managed care plans.     

Growth of consumer-directed health plans to one-half of all employer-sponsored insurance could save $57 billion annually

Enrollment is increasing in consumer-directed health insurance plans, which feature high deductibles and a personal health care savings account. We project that an increase in market share of these plans--from the current level of 13 percent of employer-sponsored insurance to 50 percent--could reduce annual health care spending by about $57 billion. That decrease would be the equivalent of a 4 percent decline in total health care spending for the nonelderly. However, such growth in consumer-directed plan enrollment also has the potential to reduce the use of recommended health care services, as well as to increase premiums for traditional health insurance plans, as healthier individuals drop traditional coverage and enroll in consumer-directed plans. In this article we explore options that policy makers and employers facing these challenges should consider, including more refined plan designs and decision support systems to promote recommended services.     

Patients and profits: the relationship between HMO financial performance and quality of care

This paper matches health plans' financial performance with information on quality ratings as measured by 1997 Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) 3.0 data. We address three policy questions: (1) Is the quality of care delivered by a plan influenced by the plan's financial performance? (2) Do for-profit plans behave differently than nonprofits do? (3) What other factors are associated with variation in plan performance? We find, first, that more profitable plans achieve higher quality scores in subsequent years. Profits may enable a plan to pursue higher quality of care and invest in better management systems. Second, there is little systematic evidence that for-profit plans have different HEDIS scores than not-for-profits have.