Search

Context: Continuing changes in the health care delivery system make it essential to monitor underuse of needed care, even for relatively well-insured populations. Traditional approaches to measuring underuse have relied on patient surveys and chart reviews, which are expensive, or simple single-condition claims-based indicators, which are not clinically convincing.Objective: To develop a comprehensive, low-cost system for measuring underuse of necessary care among elderly patients using inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims.Design: A 7-member, multispecialty expert physician panel was assembled and used a modified Delphi method to develop clinically detailed underuse indicators likely to be associated with avoidable poor outcomes for 15 common acute and chronic medical and surgical conditions. An automated system was developed to calculate the indicators using administrative data.Setting and Subjects: A total of 345,253 randomly selected elderly US Medicare beneficiaries in 1994-1996.Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of beneficiaries receiving care, stratified by indicators of necessary care (n = 40, including 3 for preventive care), and avoidable outcomes (n = 6).Results: For 16 of 40 necessary care indicators (including preventive care indicators), beneficiaries received the indicated care less than two thirds of the time. Of all indicators, African Americans scored significantly worse than whites on 16 and better on 2; residents of poverty areas scored significantly lower than nonresidents on 17 and higher on 1; residents of federally defined Health Professional Shortage Areas scored significantly lower than nonresidents on 16 and higher on none (P<.05 for all).Conclusions: This claims-based method detected substantial underuse problems likely to result in negative outcomes in elderly populations. Significantly more underuse problems were detected in populations known to receive less-than-average medical care. The method can serve as a reliable, valid tool for monitoring trends in underuse of needed care for older patients and for comparing care across health care plans and geographic areas based on claims data. JAMA. 2000;284:2325-2333. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a previous comparison of persons between 14 and 62 years of age randomly assigned to receive care through a fee-for-service system (n = 784) or through a health maintenance organization (HMO) (n = 738) in Seattle, Washington, persons in the HMO had much lower hospital expenditures and admissions, more bed days, a higher prevalence of serious symptoms, and less satisfaction with care. We report an examination of 20 additional health status measures. Our results are consistent with a hypothesis of no differences in health status measures between the two systems. In addition, a comparison of nine health practices between the systems also indicated no overall differences. Most physiologic measures and health practices for a typical person were not affected by care received through the fee-for-service system or the HMO. However, we are less certain of this result in specific subgroups, such as persons of lower income initially at elevated risk, because confidence intervals are necessarily wider. We conclude that the cost savings achieved by this HMO through lower hospitalization rates were not reflected in lower levels of health status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We estimate the lifetime, discounted costs that smokers and drinkers impose on others through collectively financed health insurance, pensions, disability insurance, group life insurance, fires, motor-vehicle accidents, and the criminal justice system. Although nonsmokers subsidize smokers' medical care and group life insurance, smokers subsidize nonsmokers' pensions and nursing home payments. On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise taxes on cigarettes; but one may, nonetheless, wish to raise those taxes to reduce the number of adolescent smokers. In contrast, drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article cites a study conducted by researcher N.S. Wenger and colleagues, published in the November 4, 2003 issue of the medical journal "Annals of Internal Medicine," which evaluated the quality of care provided to older patients who are at risk for functional decline. Quality of care varied substantially by condition, being worst for end-of-life care and best for stroke. Care aimed at treating an illness was more likely to meet quality indicator standards than care aimed at follow-up, diagnosis, or prevention. Quality of care was better for general medical conditions than for common geriatric conditions.