Do patient assessments of primary care differ by patient ethnicity?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if patient assessments (reports and ratings) of primary care differ by patient ethnicity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY DESIGN: A self-administered patient survey of 6,092 Massachusetts employees measured seven defining characteristics of primary care: (1) access (financial, organizational); (2) continuity (longitudinal, visit based); (3) comprehensiveness (knowledge of patient, preventive counseling); (4) integration; (5) clinical interaction (communication, thoroughness of physical examinations); (6) interpersonal treatment; and (7) trust. The study employed a cross-sectional observational design. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Asians had the lowest primary care performance assessments of any ethnic group after adjustment for socioeconomic and other factors. For example, compared to whites, Asians had lower scores for communication (69 vs. 79, p = .001) and comprehensive knowledge of patient (56 vs. 48, p = .002), African Americans and Latinos had less access to care, and African Americans had less longitudinal continuity than whites. CONCLUSIONS: We do not know what accounts for the observed differences in patient assessments of primary care. The fact that patient reports as well as the more subjective ratings of care differed by ethnicity suggests that quality differences might exist that need to be addressed.

Adolescents' understanding of social class: a comparison of white upper middle class and working class youth.

PURPOSE: Social class is increasingly being recognized as an important factor in the development of population-based variation in health among teens. However, little consensus exists regarding its measurement or conceptualization. METHODS: This study examined beliefs about social class of 48 working class and 50 upper middle class 16-year-old, white teens. RESULTS: Working class teens were more likely to misclassify themselves with regard to social class position. Significant class differences were present in beliefs regarding social mobility, parents' equity, equality of opportunity within society, and financial status as adults. How this conceptualization of social class translates into population-based variation in health remains an important area for further inquiry.

Organizational and financial characteristics of health plans: are they related to primary care performance?

BACKGROUND: Primary care performance has been shown to differ under different models of health care delivery, even among various models of managed care. Pervasive changes in our nation's health care delivery systems, including the emergence of new forms of managed care, compel more current data. OBJECTIVE: To compare the primary care received by patients in each of 5 models of managed care (managed indemnity, point of service, network-model health maintenance organization [HMO], group-model HMO, and staff-model HMO) and identify specific characteristics of health plans associated with performance differences. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of Massachusetts adults who reported having a regular personal physician and for whom plan-type was known (n = 6018). Participants completed a validated questionnaire measuring 7 defining characteristics of primary care. Senior health plan executives provided information about financial and nonfinancial features of the plan's contractual arrangements with physicians. RESULTS: The managed indemnity system performed most favorably, with the highest adjusted mean scores for 8 of 10 measures (P<.05). Point of service and network-model HMO performance equaled the indemnity system on many measures. Staff-model HMOs performed least favorably, with adjusted mean scores that were lowest or statistically equivalent to the lowest score on all 10 scales. Among network-model HMOs, several features of the plan's contractual arrangement with physicians (ie, capitated physician payment, extensive use of clinical practice guidelines, financial incentives concerning patient satisfaction) were significantly associated with performance (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: With US employers and purchasers having largely rejected traditional indemnity insurance as unaffordable, the results suggest that the current momentum toward open-model managed care plans is consistent with goals for high-quality primary care, but that the effects of specific financial and nonfinancial incentives used by plans must continue to be examined.

Public policy frameworks for improving population health.

Four conceptual frameworks provide bases for constructing comprehensive public policy strategies for improving population health within wealthy (OECD) nations. (1) Determinants of population health. There are five broad categories: genes and biology, medical care, health behaviors, the ecology of all living things, and social/societal characteristics. (2) Complex systems: Linear effects models and multiple independent effects models fail to yield results that explain satisfactorily the dynamics of population health production. A different method (complex systems modeling) is needed to select the most effective interventions to improve population health. (3) An intervention framework for population health improvement. A two-by-five grid seems useful. Most intervention strategies are either ameliorative or fundamentally corrective. The other dimension of the grid captures five general categories of interventions: child development, community development, adult self-actualization, socioeconomic well-being, and modulated hierarchical structuring. (4) Public policy development process: the process has two phases. The initial phase, in which public consensus builds and an authorizing environment evolves, progresses from values and culture to identification of the problem, knowledge development from research and experience, the unfolding of public awareness, and the setting of a national agenda. The later phase, taking policy action, begins with political engagement and progresses to interest group activation, public policy deliberation and adoption, and ultimately regulation and revision. These frameworks will be applied to help understand the 39 recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, the Sir Donald Acheson Report from the United Kingdom, which is the most ambitious attempt to date to develop a comprehensive plan to improve population health.

Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care.

BACKGROUND: Substantial research links many of the defining characteristics of primary care to important outcomes; yet little is known about the relative importance of each characteristic, and several characteristics have not been examined. These analyses evaluate the relationship between seven defining elements of primary care (accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, integration, clinical interaction, interpersonal treatment, and trust) and three outcomes (adherence to physician's advice, patient satisfaction, and improved health status). METHODS: Data were derived from a cross-sectional observational study of adults employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (N = 7204). All patients completed a validated questionnaire, the Primary Care Assessment Survey. Regression methods were used to examine the association between each primary care characteristic (11 summary scales measuring 7 elements of care) and each outcome. RESULTS: Physicians' comprehensive ("whole person") knowledge of patients and patients' trust in their physician were the variables most strongly associated with adherence, and trust was the variable most strongly associated with patients' satisfaction with their physician. With other factors equal, adherence rates were 2.6 times higher among patients with whole-person knowledge scores in the 95th percentile compared with the 5th percentile (44.0% adherence vs 16.8% adherence, P < .001). The likelihood of complete satisfaction was 87.5% for those with 95th percentile trust scores compared with 0.4% for patients with 5th percentile trust scores (P < .001). The leading correlates of self-reported health improvements were integration of care, thoroughness of physical examinations, communication, comprehensive knowledge of patients, and trust (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' trust in their physician and physicians' knowledge of patients are leading correlates of three important outcomes of care. The results are noteworthy in the context of pervasive changes in our nation's health care system that are widely viewed as threatening to the quality of physician-patient relationships.

The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance.

OBJECTIVES: The authors examine the data quality and measurement performance of the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS), a patient-completed questionnaire that operationalizes formal definitions of primary care, including the definition recently proposed by the Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Primary Care. METHODS: The PCAS measures seven domains of care through 11 summary scales: accessibility (organizational, financial), continuity (longitudinal, visit-based), comprehensiveness (contextual knowledge of patient, preventive counseling), integration, clinical interaction (clinician-patient communication, thoroughness of physical examinations), interpersonal treatment, and trust. Data from a study of Massachusetts state employees (n = 6094) were used to evaluate key measurement properties of the 11 PCAS scales. Analyses were performed on the combined population and for each of the 16 subgroups defined according to sociodemographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: The 11 PCAS scales demonstrated consistently strong measurement characteristics across all subgroups of this adult population. Tests of scaling assumptions for summated rating scales were well satisfied by all Likert-scaled measures. Assessment of data completeness, scale score dispersion characteristics, and inter-scale correlations provide strong evidence for the soundness of all scales, and for the value of separately measuring and interpreting these concepts. CONCLUSIONS: With public and private sector policies increasingly emphasizing the importance of primary care, the need for tools to evaluate and improve primary care performance is clear. The PCAS has excellent measurement properties, and performs consistently well across varied segments of the adult population. Widespread application of an assessment methodology, such as the PCAS, will afford an empiric basis through which to measure, monitor, and continuously improve primary care.

A longitudinal study of hospitalization rates for patients with chronic disease: results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare inpatient and outpatient utilization rates between prepaid (PPD) and fee-for-service (FFS) insurance coverage for patients with chronic disease. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Data from the Medical Outcomes Study, a longitudinal observational study of chronic disease patients conducted in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles. STUDY DESIGN: A four-year prospective study of resource utilization among 1,681 patients under treatment for hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure in the practices of 367 clinicians. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Insurance payment system (PPD or FFS), hospitalizations, and office visits were obtained from patient reports. Disease and severity indicators, sociodemographics, and self-reported functional status were used to adjust for patient mix and to compute expected utilization rates. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to FFS, PPD patients had 31 percent fewer observed hospitalizations before adjustment for patient differences (p = .005) and 15 percent fewer hospitalizations than expected after adjustment (p = .078). The observed rate of FFS hospitalizations exceeded the expected rate by 9 percent. These results are not explained by system differences in patient mix or trends in hospital use over four years. Half of the PPD/FFS difference in hospitalization rate is due to intrinsic characteristics of the payment system itself. CONCLUSIONS: PPD patients with chronic medical conditions followed prospectively over four years, after extensive patient-mix adjustment, had 15 percent fewer hospitalizations than their FFS counterparts owing to differences intrinsic to the insurance reimbursement system.

The relationship between patient income and physician discussion of health risk behaviors.

CONTEXT: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that physicians assess patients' health risk behaviors, addressing those needing modification. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between patient income, health risk behaviors, the prevalence of physician discussion of these behaviors, and the receptiveness of patients to their physicians' advice. DESIGN: Employee survey. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 6549 Massachusetts state employees in 12 health plans. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were obtained using a patient-completed mail survey. Trend tests were used to discern differences in the prevalence of health risk behaviors, physician discussion of these behaviors, and patient receptiveness to discussions by patient income. RESULTS: Although unhealthy behaviors were common among all income groups, physician discussion of health risk behaviors fell far short of the universal risk assessment recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Low-income patients were more likely to be obese and smoke than high-income patients and were less likely to wear seat belts and exercise. In contrast, stress and alcohol consumption increased with income, while the proportion of heavy drinkers did not vary significantly. Physicians were more likely to discuss diet and exercise with high-income patients in need of these discussions than with low-income patients, but were more likely to discuss smoking with low-income patients who smoked than with high-income patients who smoked. Among patients with whom discussions occurred, low-income patients were much more likely to report attempting to change their behavior based on physician advice. CONCLUSIONS: Physician counseling of patients regarding health risk behaviors should be greatly improved if the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations are to be fulfilled. Improvement is especially needed in regard to alcohol consumption, safe sex, and seat belt use. Physicians also need to be more vigilant in properly identifying and counseling low-income patients at risk in regard to diet and exercise and high-income patients who smoke.

Influences of gender and social class on adolescents' perceptions of health.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how gender and social class affect perceptions of health status among 16-year-old adolescents. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: University psychology laboratory. PARTICIPANS: Fifty upper-middle-class and 48 working-class adolescents stratified by gender. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The general health perceptions (GHP) scale of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). The other self-reported health status domains and 3 measures of different aspects of psychological well-being were included as covariates in analysis of variance models. RESULTS: Upper-middle-class females reported the lowest and upper-middle-class males the highest GHP (76.7 vs 88.4, P=.003). A multivariate regression model (adjusted R2=0.08) revealed significant gender (P=.03) differences in GHP, but not a social class effect, and an interaction effect between gender and class (P=.01). With addition of psychological well-being covariates (P<.001), gender remained significant (P=.04) and a significant portion of the interaction effect (P=.13) was explained. When the self-reported physical health status scales (P<.001) were added to the model (adjusted R2=0.51), gender remained significant (P=.03) and the interaction effect was partially explained (P=.07). CONCLUSIONS: Gender is a crucial factor in understanding the complex relationships between sociostructural inequalities and health differentials. These data suggest that psychological well-being and self-reported physical health status mediate the effects of gender and the gender and social class interaction in explaining variation in GHP. Contrary to the social class gradient hypothesis, upper-middle-class females reported the lowest GHP. These results suggest that the paradigms applicable to early childhood and adulthood may not be appropriate to understand the complex dynamics of adolescence.

Gender differences in medical treatment: the case of physician-prescribed activity restrictions.

A growing scientific literature highlights concern about the influence of social bias in medical care. Differential treatment of male and female patients has been among the documented concerns. Yet, little is known about the extent to which differential treatment of male and female patients reflects the influence of social bias or of more acceptable factors, such as different patient preferences or different anticipated outcomes of care. This paper attempts to ascertain the underlying basis for an observed differential in physicians' tendency to advice activity restrictions for male and female patients. We explore the extent to which the gender-based treatment differential is attributable to: (1) patients' health profile, (2) patients' role responsibilities, (3) patients' illness behaviors, and (4) physician characteristics. These four categories of variables correspond to four prominent social science hypotheses concerning gender differences in health and health care utilization (i.e, biological basis hypothesis, fixed role hypothesis, socialization hypothesis, physician bias hypothesis). Data are drawn from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), a longitudinal observational study of 1546 patients of 349 physicians practicing in three U.S. cities. Multivariate logistic regression is used to evaluate the likelihood of physician-prescribed activity restrictions for male and female patients, and to explore the absolute and relative influence of patient and physician factors on the observed treatment differential. Results reveal that the odds of prescribed activity restrictions are 3.6 times higher for female patients than for males with equivalent characteristics. The observed differential is not explained by differences in male and female patients' health or role responsibilities. Gender differences in illness behavior and physician gender biases both appear to contribute to the observed differential. Female patients exhibit more illness behavior than males, and these behaviors increase physicians' tendency to prescribe activity restrictions. After accounting for illness behavior differences and all other factors, the odds of prescribed activity restrictions among female patients of male physicians is four times that of equivalent male patients of those physicians. Medical practice, education, and research must strive to identify and remove the likely unconscious role of social bias in medical decision making.

Asian-American patient ratings of physician primary care performance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how Asian-American patients' ratings of primary care performance differ from those of whites. Latinos, and African-Americans. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of data collected in a cross-sectional study using patient questionnaires. SETTING: University hospital primary care group practice. PARTICIPANTS: In phase 1, successive patients who visited the study site for appointments were asked to complete the survey. In phase 2, successive patients were selected who had most recently visited each physician, going back as far as necessary to obtain 20 patients for each physician. In total, 502 patients were surveyed, 5% of whom were Asian-American. MAIN RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, Asian-Americans rated overall satisfaction and 10 of 11 scales assessing primary care significantly lower than whites did. Dimensions of primary care that were assessed include access, comprehensiveness of care, integration, continuity, clinical quality, interpersonal treatment, and trust. There were no differences for the scale of longitudinal continuity. On average, the rating scale scores of Asian-Americans were 12 points lower than those of whites (on 100-point scales). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that Asian-American patients rate physicians primary care performance lower than do whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. Future research needs to focus on Asian-Americans to determine the generalizability of these findings and the extent to which they reflect differences in survey response tendencies or actual quality differences.

Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly and poor, chronically ill patients treated in HMO and fee-for-service systems. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare physical and mental health outcomes of chronically ill adults, including elderly and poor subgroups, treated in health maintenance organization (HMO) and fee-for-service (FFS) systems. STUDY DESIGN: A 4-year observational study of 2235 patients (18 to 97 years of age) with hypertension, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), recent acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and depressive disorder sampled from HMO and FFS systems in 1986 and followed up through 1990. Those aged 65 years and older covered under Medicare and low-income patients (200% of poverty) were analyzed separately. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Offices of physicians practicing family medicine, internal medicine, endocrinology, cardiology, and psychiatry, in HMO and FFS systems of care. Types of practices included both prepaid group (72% of patients) and independent practice association (28%) types of HMOs, large multispecialty groups, and solo or small, single-specialty practices in Boston, Mass, Chicago, Ill, and Los Angeles, Calif. OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between initial and 4-year follow-up scores of summary physical and mental health scales from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) for all patients and practice settings. RESULTS: On average, physical health declined and mental health remained stable during the 4-year follow-up period, with physical declines larger for the elderly than for the nonelderly (P<.001). In comparisons between HMO and FFS systems, physical and mental health outcomes did not differ for the average patient; however, they did differ for subgroups of the population differing in age and poverty status. For elderly patients (those aged 65 years and older) treated under Medicare, declines in physical health were more common in HMOs than in FFS plans (54% vs 28%; P<.001). In 1 site, mental health outcomes were better (P<.05) for elderly patients in HMOs relative to FFS but not in 2 other sites. For patients differing in poverty status, opposite patterns of physical health (P<.05) and for mental health (P<.001) outcomes were observed across systems; outcomes favored FFS over HMOs for the poverty group and favored HMOs over FFS for the nonpoverty group. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, elderly and poor chronically ill patients had worse physical health outcomes in HMOs than in FFS systems; mental health outcomes varied by study site and patient characteristics. Current health care plans should carefully monitor the health outcomes of these vulnerable subgroups.

Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the medical outcomes study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) who were cared for in three different systems of care and by generalist and subspecialist physicians. DESIGN: An observational study with follow-up at three periods: (1) a 2-year study of 532 patients with hypertension and 170 patients with NIDDM who had entrance and exit histories, physical examinations, and laboratory tests; (2) a 4-year follow-up of 1044 patients with hypertension and 317 patients with NIDDM based on patient-reported functional status; and (3) 7-year mortality for 1296 patients with hypertension and 424 patients with NIDDM. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients sampled from health maintenance organizations, large multispecialty groups, and solo or single-specialty group practices in Boston, Mass, Los Angeles, Calif, and Chicago, Ill. Patients were designated as belonging to one of three systems of care: fee for service; prepaid patients in solo or small single-specialty groups or in large multispecialty group practices, referred to as independent practice associations; and staff-model health maintenance organizations. The principal providers were family practitioners, general internists, cardiologists, or endocrinologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physiological, functional, and mortality. For hypertension, we measured blood pressure and stroke incidence. For NIDDM, we measured blood pressure, glycosylated hemoglobin level, visual function, vibration sense, ulcers and infections in the feet, and albumin excretion rate. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mortality was assessed for the 7 years following the entrance examination. RESULTS: We found no evidence that any one system of care or physician specialty achieved consistently better 2-year or 4-year outcomes than others for patients with NIDDM or hypertension. Endocrinologists appeared to achieve better foot-ulcer and infection outcomes for patients with NIDDM, particularly when compared with family practitioners. However, no other specialist differences were found in any individual measures for either condition. Moreover, no adjusted mortality differences among systems or among physicians specialties were observed in the 7-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION: No meaningful differences were found in the mean health outcomes for patients with hypertension or NIDDM, whether they were treated by different care systems or by different physician specialists. Although prepaid medicine relies more heavily on generalist physicians than does fee for service, there is no evidence from these analyses that the quality of care of moderately ill patients with these two common disease was adversely affected. These findings must be viewed in light of the historically higher costs of fee-for-service medicine and of subspecialty physician practice.

Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

Interest has increased in recent years in incorporating health status measures into clinical practice for use at the individual-patient level. We propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: (1) practical features, (2) breadth of health measured, (3) depth of health measured, (4) precision for cross-sectional assessment, (5) precision for longitudinal monitoring and (6) validity. We evaluate five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) that have been proposed for use in clinical practice. We conducted an analytical literature review to evaluate the six measurement standards for individual-patient applications across the five surveys. The most problematic feature of the five surveys was their lack of precision for individual-patient applications. Across all scales, reliability standards for individual assessment and monitoring were not satisfied, and the 95% CIs were very wide. There was little evidence of the validity of the five surveys for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The health status surveys examined in this paper may not be suitable for monitoring the health and treatment status of individual patients. Clinical usefulness of existing measures might be demonstrated as clinical experience is broadened. At this time, however, it seems that new instruments, or adaptation of existing measures and scaling methods, are needed for individual-patient assessment and monitoring.

Primary care performance in fee-for-service and prepaid health care systems. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the quality of primary care delivered in prepaid and fee-for-service (FFS) health care systems. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study of 1208 adult patients with chronic disease whose health insurance was through a traditional indemnity (FFS) plan, an independent practice association (IPA), or a health maintenance organization (HMO). Both IPA and HMO represent prepaid care systems. Patient- and physician-provided information was obtained by self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: A total of 303 physician offices (family medicine, general internal medicine, endocrinology, or cardiology) in solo and group practices in three US cities. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Seven indicators of primary care quality--accessibility (financial and organizational), continuity, comprehensiveness, coordination, and accountability (interpersonal and technical) of care. Performance on each was evaluated in FFS, IPA, and HMO settings. Analyses controlled for patient and physician characteristics. RESULTS: Financial access was highest in prepaid systems. Organizational access, continuity, and accountability were highest in the FFS system. Coordination was highest and comprehensiveness was lowest in HMOs. CONCLUSIONS: The results mark notable differences in core dimensions of primary care quality in each of three payment systems and raise questions regarding the associated cost inefficiencies and outcomes of care. In the current health care delivery reform climate, these findings call for consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. We suggest strategies for elevating performance in each.

The coming influence of a social sciences perspective on medical education.

Medical education will change from within in response to continued advances in biological sciences and technology, but changes that are occurring outside the natural sciences can have greater impact, especially (1) the reconceptualization of the meaning of health, (2) the increase in the number and range of different health improvement strategies, (3) the growing awareness of the paradox of the relatively low health status of the U.S. population and high per-capita and national health care expenditures, and (4) shifts in the causes of illness and death. These changes make it necessary for medical students to be given a foundation in both the natural and the social sciences, for most ill health has causal roots in both the social and physical environment, even though it is not understood how some of these outside influences are translated into disease or biologic derangements that lead to disease. Consideration should be given to changes in medical education that include (1) interpreting the sociology as well as the biology of health, (2) expanding the horizons of medicine to incorporate health improvement as well as disease cure, (3) training for population-based health care at the community level, and (4) learning to assess medical outcomes with more than biometric measures to include measurements of functioning and well-being. The author presents in detail a health input-output model to show the complex interrelationships of socio-ecologic (i.e., outside) factors and the individual's genetic-biologic makeup (inside factors) that determine the individual's state of health.