Search

In this paper, we examine whether patient narratives alter the impact of stereotyping on choice of primary care clinicians: in this case, the common presumption that female doctors will be more attentive to empathic relationships with patients. 1052 individuals were selected from a nationally representative Internet panel to participate in a survey experiment. Participants were given performance data about 12 fictitious primary care physicians, including a randomized set of narrative feedback from patients. We compared the choice of clinician made by participants who value bedside manner and were exposed to narratives in the experiment, compared to those valuing bedside manner who had not had this exposure. We estimated multivariate logistic regressions to assess whether exposure to patient comments that "disrupt" stereotypes influenced choice of physicians. Participants who saw patient comments and had previously reported caring about bedside manner had a 67% higher odds of choosing a female physician than those participants that did not see a patient comments, controlling for the content of the narratives themselves. When participants were exposed to patient comments that disrupt gendered stereotypes, they had a 40% lower odds of choosing a female physician. Simple exposure to patient narratives that do not clearly disrupt gendered stereotypes increased the likelihood of choosing a female clinician by priming attention to relational aspects of care. However, when the content of a sufficient proportion of patient comments runs counter stereotypes, even a minority of narratives is sufficient to disrupt gendered-expectations and alter choices., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bhaumik, Schlesinger. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

For two decades, various initiatives have encouraged Americans to consider quality when choosing clinicians, both to enhance informed choice and to reduce disparities in access to high-quality providers. The literature portrays these efforts as largely ineffective. But this depiction overlooks two factors: the dramatic expansion since 2010 in the availability of patients' narratives about care and the growth of information seeking among consumers. Using surveys fielded in 2010, 2014, and 2015, we assessed the impact of these changes on consumers' awareness of quality information and sociodemographic differences. Public exposure to any quality information doubled between 2010 and 2015, while exposure to patient narratives and experience surveys tripled. Reflecting a greater propensity to seek quality metrics, minority consumers remained better informed than whites over time, albeit with differences across subgroups in the types of information encountered. An education-related gradient in quality awareness also emerged over the past decade. Public policy should respond to emerging trends in information exposure, establish standards for rigorous elicitation of narratives, and assist consumers' learning from a combination of narratives and quantified metrics on clinician quality.

Background: Public reports on healthcare quality typically include complex data. To lower the cognitive burden of interpreting these data, some report designers create summary, or roll-up, measures combining multiple indicators of quality into one score. Little is known about how the availability of roll-ups affects clinician choice., Objective: To determine how presenting quality scores at different levels of aggregation affects patients' clinician choices., Design: We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, randomizing participants to three versions of a public reporting website and comparing their clinician choices. One version aggregated all clinician-level quality measures into roll-ups, the second provided disaggregated (drill-down) scores only, and the third offered both roll-ups and drill-downs., Participants: Five hundred fifty panelists drawn from a probability-based Internet panel., Main Measures: We assessed the amount of effort participants exerted by tracking the length of time spent on the website and the number of concrete actions taken on the website (e.g., clicking items). We evaluated decision quality by measuring whether participants selected a clinician who performed more poorly than others and incongruence between participants' stated preferences for dimensions of quality and their chosen clinician's performance on those dimensions., Key Results: Participants seeing drill-downs alone (mean = 14.9) or with roll-ups (mean = 19.2) took more actions than those who saw roll-ups alone (mean = 10.5) (ps < 0.05). However, participants seeing only drill-downs made poorer choices than those who saw roll-ups alone or with drill-downs. More participants seeing drill-downs chose a clinician who was outperformed (36.3% versus 23.4% [roll-up] and 25.6% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05) and made choices incongruent with stated preferences (51.2% versus 45.6% [roll-up] and 47.5% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05). The distinction between roll-up and drill-down was somewhat stronger for sicker participants., Conclusions: Our results suggest that roll-ups in healthcare quality reports, alone or as a complement to drill-downs, can help patients make better decisions for themselves.

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.

We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, comparing choices and decision-making processes of participants (N = 688) randomized among four experimental arms: a conventional website reporting only quantitative performance information, a website reporting both qualitative (patient comments) and quantitative information, the second website augmented by a decision aid (labeling of patient comments), and the decision-aided website further augmented by the presence of a trained navigator. Introducing patient comments enhanced engagement with the quality information but led to a decline in decision quality, particularly the consistency of choices with consumers' stated preferences. Labeling comments helped erase the decline in decision quality, although the highest percentage of preference-congruent choices was seen in the navigator arm. Engagement with the quality information and satisfaction with choices available were likewise highest in the navigator arm. Findings held for high- and low-skilled decision makers. Thus, navigator assistance may be a promising strategy for equitably promoting higher quality choices in information-rich contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsNarratives about patients' experiences with outpatient care are essential for quality improvement because they convey ample actionable information that both elaborates on existing domains within patient experience surveys and describes multiple additional domains that are important to patients.The content of narrative feedback from patients can potentially be translated to improved quality in multiple ways: clinicians can learn from their own patients, groups of clinicians can learn from the experience of their peers' patients, and health system administrators can identify and respond to patterns in patients' accounts that reflect systemic challenges to quality.Consistent investment by payers and providers is required to ensure that patient narratives are rigorously collected, analyzed fully, and effectively used for quality improvement. Context: For the past 25 years, health care providers and health system administrators have sought to improve care by surveying patients about their experiences. More recently, policymakers have acted to promote this learning by deploying financial incentives tied to survey scores. This article explores the potential of systematically elicited narratives about experiences with outpatient care to enrich quality improvement. Methods: Narratives were collected from 348 patients recruited from a nationally representative Internet panel. Drawing from the literature on health services innovation, we developed a two‐part coding schema that categorized narrative content in terms of (a) the aspects of care being described, and (b) the actionability of this information for clinicians, quality improvement staff, and health system administrators. Narratives were coded using this schema, with high levels of reliability among the coders. Findings: The scope of outpatient narratives divides evenly among aspects of care currently measured by patient experience surveys (35% of content), aspects related to measured domains but not captured by existing survey questions (31%), and aspects of care that are omitted from surveys entirely (34%). Overall, the narrative data focused heavily on relational aspects of care (43%), elaborating on this aspect of experience well beyond what is captured with communication‐related questions on existing surveys. Three‐quarters of elicited narratives had some actionable content, and almost a third contained three or more separate actionable elements. Conclusions: In a health policy environment that incentivizes attention to patient experience, rigorously elicited narratives hold substantial promise for improving quality in general and patients' experiences with care in particular. They do so in two ways: by making concrete what went wrong or right in domains covered by existing surveys, and by expanding our view of what aspects of care matter to patients as articulated in their own words and thus how care can be made more patient‐centered. Most narratives convey experiences that are potentially actionable by those committed to improving health care quality in outpatient settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public reports on healthcare quality typically include complex data. To lower the cognitive burden of interpreting these data, some report designers create summary, or roll-up, measures combining multiple indicators of quality into one score. Little is known about how the availability of roll-ups affects clinician choice.Objective: To determine how presenting quality scores at different levels of aggregation affects patients' clinician choices.Design: We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, randomizing participants to three versions of a public reporting website and comparing their clinician choices. One version aggregated all clinician-level quality measures into roll-ups, the second provided disaggregated (drill-down) scores only, and the third offered both roll-ups and drill-downs.Participants: Five hundred fifty panelists drawn from a probability-based Internet panel.Main Measures: We assessed the amount of effort participants exerted by tracking the length of time spent on the website and the number of concrete actions taken on the website (e.g., clicking items). We evaluated decision quality by measuring whether participants selected a clinician who performed more poorly than others and incongruence between participants' stated preferences for dimensions of quality and their chosen clinician's performance on those dimensions.Key Results: Participants seeing drill-downs alone (mean = 14.9) or with roll-ups (mean = 19.2) took more actions than those who saw roll-ups alone (mean = 10.5) (ps < 0.05). However, participants seeing only drill-downs made poorer choices than those who saw roll-ups alone or with drill-downs. More participants seeing drill-downs chose a clinician who was outperformed (36.3% versus 23.4% [roll-up] and 25.6% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05) and made choices incongruent with stated preferences (51.2% versus 45.6% [roll-up] and 47.5% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05). The distinction between roll-up and drill-down was somewhat stronger for sicker participants.Conclusions: Our results suggest that roll-ups in healthcare quality reports, alone or as a complement to drill-downs, can help patients make better decisions for themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy Points:Effectively addressing low‐value care calls for engaging the public, including the one‐third of Americans who currently cannot envision benefits from avoiding low‐value care.Public awareness of and response to low‐value care can be enhanced through revised media messaging. These efforts are more effective if they emphasize health risks rather than the financial costs associated with unnecessary tests and treatments.Long‐term robust public support for addressing low‐value care may require shifting the focus from particular tests and treatments to emphasize, instead, the potential for better communication and more personalized attention if clinicians spend more time talking and less time testing. Context: As much as 30% of US health care spending may be unnecessary. The Choosing Wisely campaign, now active in a dozen countries, addresses this problem in part through public education campaigns. This article explores Americans’ understanding of low‐value care in 2015, assesses the impact of media messaging, and tests alternative message framing. Methods: We use a mixed‐methods design incorporating (1) 8 focus groups exploring Americans’ understanding of and language for low‐value care, (2) 48 intensive interviews with patients on their interactions with physicians regarding questions of cost and value, (3) a national survey of 920 respondents examining their awareness of low‐value care, and (4) a survey experiment with 785 participants, testing the impact of media messages on attitudes about low‐value care, treatment choices, and selection of a primary care clinician. Findings: One‐third of Americans have difficulty envisioning benefits from avoiding low‐value care, a figure that increases to half for less educated and minority respondents. Most Americans who anticipate benefits hope that less testing and treatment will be replaced by more interactive and personalized care. Even without media priming, many Americans would avoid common forms of low‐value care like unnecessary antibiotics or excess imaging for lower back pain, but few favor clinicians who avoid these practices. Although the public's awareness and actions are increased and disparities are reduced by media messaging, conventional messages also exacerbate the blame placed on providers. Avoiding low‐value care is enhanced, blaming providers is reduced, and disparities are further diminished if messages put more emphasis on the health risks of these tests and treatments. Conclusions: The public's awareness of low‐value care is incomplete, with substantial disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Media messaging can help fill these gaps but, in the short run, would be enhanced by fine‐tuning how low‐value care is characterized. In the longer run, building robust public support for reducing low‐value care may require refocusing attention away from specific tests and treatments and toward the relational benefits for patients if clinicians spent less time on testing and more time on personalized care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the states engaged in an extended period of adopting and revising laws regulating managed care during the 1990s, there has been to date only limited empirical assessment of the impacts of these laws. For this analysis, we constructed a data set using information on state laws combined with survey responses of physicians. We distinguish regulations with a typology based on whether they affect the context or content of care and the target group of the regulation (consumer or provider). Our findings indicate that the context of care appears to be more efficaciously regulated than the content of care. Provisions concerning consumer access and contractual relationships lead to greater reported physician ability to obtain referrals and services, improved quality of clinical interactions, and greater perceived clinical autonomy. Regulations intended to enhance professional autonomy are associated with lower reported levels of utilization constraints and higher reported quality of clinical interactions. In contrast, consumer protection provisions, including procedures for appeals from plan decisions, appear to have had little impact on most physicians' practices. Despite structural and legal constraints on the potential effectiveness of these regulations, state managed care legislation appears to have provided some protections against managed care restrictions on physicians' clinical autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine key factors that influence sustainability in the diffusion of the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) as an example of an evidence-based, multifaceted, innovative program to improve care for hospitalized older adults. Longitudinal, qualitative study between November 2000 and November 2003 based on 102 in-depth interviews every 6 months during HELP implementation. Thirteen hospitals implementing HELP. Forty-two hospital staff members (physician, nursing, volunteer, and administrative staff) implementing HELP, conducted 102 interviews. Staff experiences sustaining the program, including challenges and strategies that they viewed as successful in addressing these challenges. Of the 13 hospitals studied, 10 were sustaining HELP at the end of the study period; three terminated the program (after 24 months, 12 months, and 6 months). Critical factors were identified as influencing whether the program was sustained: the presence of clinical leadership, the ability and willingness to adapt the original HELP protocols to local hospital circumstances and constraints, and the ability to obtain longer-term resources and funding for HELP. Recognizing the need for sustained clinical leadership and funding as well as the inevitable modifications required to sustain innovative programs can promote more-realistic goals and expectations for health services researchers, clinicians, and policy makers in their laudable efforts to translate research into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health plans use selective physician networks to control costs while improving quality. However, narrow (limited) networks raise concerns about reduced access to and continuity of care. In the period 2010-15, the proportion of Medicaid managed care plans in fourteen states with narrow primary care physician networks--that is, the plans that employed 30 percent or less of those physicians in their market--declined from a peak of 42 percent in 2011 to 27 percent in 2015. On average, plans experienced a 12 percent annual turnover rate, with 34 percent of primary care physicians exiting within five years. Turnover was 3 percentage points higher in plans with narrow networks after one year, and 20 percentage points higher after five years, compared to turnover in plans with non-narrow networks. These findings suggest that efforts to maintain adequate physician networks must monitor not only the breadth of the networks, but also the continuity within them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]