Reporting CAHPS and HEDIS data by race/ethnicity for Medicare beneficiaries

RAND, Pittsburgh, PA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.78). 04/2013; 48(2pt1):417-434. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01452.x
Source: PubMed


To produce reliable and informative health plan performance data by race/ethnicity for the Medicare beneficiary population and to consider appropriate presentation strategies.
Patient experience data from the 2008–2009 Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service (FFS) CAHPS surveys and 2008–2009 HEDIS data (MA beneficiaries only).
Mixed effects linear (and binomial) regression models estimated the reliability and statistical informativeness of CAHPS (HEDIS) measures.
Seven CAHPS and seven HEDIS measures were reliable and informative for four racial/ethnic subgroups—Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders—at sample sizes of 100 beneficiaries (200 for prescription drug plans). Although many plans lacked adequate sample size for reporting group-specific data, reportable plans contained a large majority of beneficiaries from each of the four racial/ethnic groups.
Statistically reliable and valid information on health plan performance can be reported by race/ethnicity. Many beneficiaries may have difficulty understanding such reports, however, even with careful guidance. Thus, it is recommended that health plan performance data by subgroups be reported as supplemental data and only for plans meeting sample size requirements.

1 Follower
25 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the extent to which the racial/ethnic composition of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans reflects the composition of their areas of operation, given the potential incentives created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Quality Bonus Payments for such plans to avoid enrolling racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries. 2009 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) survey and administrative data from the Medicare Enrollment Database. We defined each plan's area of operation as all counties in which it had MA enrollees, and we created a matrix of race/ethnicity by plan by county of residence to assess the racial/ethnic distribution of each plan's enrollees in comparison with the racial/ethnic composition of MA beneficiaries in its operational area. There is little evidence that health plans are selectively underenrolling blacks, Latinos, or Asians to a substantial degree. A small but potentially important subset of plans disproportionately serves minority beneficiaries. These findings provide a baseline profile that will enable crucial ongoing monitoring to assess how the implementation of Quality Bonus Payments may affect MA plan coverage of minority populations.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2013 · Health Services Research
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine how similar racial/ethnic disparities in clinical quality (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS]) and patient experience (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS]) measures are for different measures within Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. 5.7 million/492,495 MA beneficiaries with 2008-2009 HEDIS/CAHPS data. Binomial (HEDIS) and linear (CAHPS) hierarchical mixed models generated contract estimates for HEDIS/CAHPS measures for Hispanics, blacks, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and whites. We examine the correlation of within-plan disparities for HEDIS and CAHPS measures across measures. Plans with disparities for a given minority group (vs. whites) for a particular measure have a moderate tendency for similar disparities for other measures of the same type (mean r = 0.51/.21 and 53/34 percent positive and statistically significant for CAHPS/HEDIS). This pattern holds to a lesser extent for correlations of CAHPS disparities and HEDIS disparities (mean r = 0.05/0.14/0.23 and 4.4/5.6/4.4 percent) positive and statistically significant for blacks/Hispanics/API. Similarities in CAHPS and HEDIS disparities across measures might reflect common structural factors, such as language services or provider incentives, affecting several measures simultaneously. Health plan structural changes might reduce disparities across multiple measures. © Health Research and Educational Trust.
    No preview · Conference Paper · Nov 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · BMJ British medical journal
Show more