Patient ratings of case managers in a medical home: associations with patient satisfaction and health care utilization.

BACKGROUND: Case managers are employed in medical homes to coordinate care for clinically complex patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the association of patient perceptions of case manager performance with overall satisfaction and subsequent health care utilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Integrated health system in Pennsylvania. PATIENTS: Members of the health system-owned health plan who 1) received primary care in the health system's clinics, 2) were exposed to clinic-embedded case managers, and 3) completed a survey of satisfaction with care. MEASUREMENTS: Survey assessment of case manager performance and overall satisfaction with care and claims-based assessment of case manager performance and subsequent hospitalizations or emergency department visits. Survey measures were dichotomized into very good versus less than very good. RESULTS: A total of 1755 patients (44%) completed the survey and 1415 met study criteria. Survey respondents who reported very good ratings of case manager performance across all items had a higher probability of reporting very good overall satisfaction with care (92.2% vs. 62.5%; P < 0.001) and had a lower incidence of subsequent emergency department visits (incidence rate ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.98]; P = 0.029) but not hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [CI, 0.75 to 1.11]; P = 0.37) up to 2 years after the survey compared with survey respondents who reported less-than-very good case manager performance on 1 or more questions on the survey. LIMITATIONS: Satisfaction data demonstrated substantial ceiling effects. Survey nonresponse may have introduced bias in the results. CONCLUSION: Patients' favorable perceptions of case managers are associated with higher overall satisfaction with care and may lower risk for future acute care use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Effect of practice integration between urologists and radiation oncologists on prostate cancer treatment patterns.

PURPOSE: National attention has focused on whether urology-radiation oncology practice integration, known as integrated prostate cancer centers, contributes to the use of intensity modulated radiation therapy, a common and expensive prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined prostate cancer treatment patterns before and after conversion of a urology practice to an integrated prostate cancer center in July 2006. Using the SEER (Statistics, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database, we identified patients 65 years old or older in 1 statewide registry diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 2004 and 2007. We classified patients into 3 groups, including 1--those seen by integrated prostate cancer center physicians (exposure group), 2--those living in the same hospital referral region who were not seen by integrated prostate cancer center physicians (hospital referral region control group) and 3--those living elsewhere in the state (state control group). We compared changes in treatment among the 3 groups, adjusting for patient, clinical and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Compared with the 8.1 ppt increase in adjusted intensity modulated radiation therapy use in the state control group, the use of this therapy increased 20.3 ppts (95% CI 13.4, 27.1) in the integrated prostate cancer center group and 19.2 ppts (95% CI 9.6, 28.9) in the hospital referral region control group. Androgen deprivation therapy, for which Medicare reimbursement decreased sharply, similarly decreased in integrated prostate cancer center and hospital referral region controls. Prostatectomy decreased significantly in the integrated prostate cancer center group. CONCLUSIONS: Coincident with the conversion of a urology group practice to an integrated prostate cancer center, we observed an increase in intensity modulated radiation therapy and a decrease in androgen deprivation therapy in patients seen by integrated prostate cancer center physicians and those seen in the surrounding health care market that were not observed in the remainder of the state.