Public attitudes about health information technology, and its relationship to health care quality, costs, and privacy.

OBJECTIVE: To understand Americans' attitudes concerning health information technology's (IT's) potential to improve health care and differences in those attitudes based on demographics and technological affinity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A random-digit-dial sample with known probability of selection for every household in the United States with a telephone, plus a supplemental sample of cell phone users. Telephone interviews were conducted from August 2009 through November 2009. STUDY DESIGN: Data were analyzed to present univariate estimates of Americans' opinions of health IT, as well as multivariate logistic regressions to assess hypotheses relating individuals' characteristics to their opinions. Characteristics used in our model include age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, and affinity to technology. FINDINGS: A large majority (78 percent) favor use of electronic medical records (EMRs); believe EMRs could improve care and reduce costs (78 percent and 59 percent, respectively); believe benefits of EMR use outweigh privacy risks (64 percent); and support health care information sharing among providers (72 percent). Regression analyses show more positive attitudes among those with higher incomes and greater comfort using electronic technologies. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that Americans believe that health IT adoption is an effective means to improve the quality and safety of health care.

A national survey of primary care practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004. METHODS: We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs' history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published). RESULTS: Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 +/- 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036). CONCLUSIONS: American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.

Exploring the public's views on the health care system: a national survey on the issues and options.

Instead of assessing support for specific health reform initiatives, this study examines fundamental attitudes that shape views about the provision and financing of health insurance. We find strong support for equity and expansion of coverage, with few differences across sociodemographic groups, but some support for holding individuals responsible for health-related behavior. Consumers want to retain choice of plans and coverage for routine expense yet not bear additional financial burden. Compared with the rest of the United States, Californians' views exhibit more reliance on individuals and provide additional caution about the difficulty of identifying acceptable trade-offs and reaching consensus.

Can States stretch the Medicaid dollar without passing the buck? Lessons from Utah.

In 2002, Utah became the first state to reduce benefits and increase cost sharing for existing Medicaid beneficiaries, to finance a primary care benefit expansion for previously ineligible, low-income adults. Through a 2004 survey of beneficiaries, we found that expansion enrollees were predominantly poor and that most suffered from chronic conditions or disabilities, or both. Parents whose coverage was reduced to finance the expansion were extremely poor, were in poor health, and faced major financial challenges. Findings suggest that a coverage expansion approach that relies on savings from reducing coverage for current beneficiaries and solely covers primary care has important limitations.

Evaluation of the ESRD managed care demonstration operations.

Individuals with end stage renal disease (ESRD), most of whom are insured by Medicare, are generally prohibited from enrolling in Medicare managed care plans (MCPs). CMS offered ESRD patients the opportunity to participate in an ESRD managed care demonstration mandated by Congress. The demonstration tested whether managed care systems would be of interest to ESRD patients and whether these approaches would be operationally feasible and efficient for treating ESRD patients. This article examines the structure, implementation, and operational outcomes of the three demonstration sites, focusing on: the structure of these managed care programs for ESRD patients, requirements needed to attract and enroll patients, and the challenges of introducing managed care programs in the ESRD arena.

Patient selection in the ESRD managed care demonstration.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS') end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration offered an opportunity to assess patient selection among a chronically ill and inherently costly population. Patient selection refers to the phenomenon whereby those Medicare beneficiaries who choose to enroll or stay in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are, on average, younger, healthier, and less costly to treat than beneficiaries who remain in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sector. The results presented in this article show that enrollees into the demonstration were generally younger and healthier than a representative group of comparison patients from the same geographic areas.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction: ESRD managed care demonstration.

To study the effects of managed care on dialysis patients, we compared the quality of life and patient satisfaction of patients in a managed care demonstration with three comparison samples: fee-for-service (FFS) patients, managed care patients outside the demonstration, and patients in a separate national study. Managed care patients were less satisfied than FFS patients about access to health care providers, but more satisfied with the financial benefits (copayment coverage, prescription drugs, and nutritional supplements) provided under the demonstration managed care plan (MCP). After 1 year in the demonstration, patients exhibited statistically and clinically significant increases in quality of life scores.

ESRD managed care demonstration: financial implications.

In 1996, CMS launched the end stage renal disease (ESRD) managed care demonstration to study the experience of offering managed care to ESRD patients. This article analyzes the financial impact of the demonstration, which sought to assess its economic impact on the Federal Government, the sites, and the ESRD Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare's costs for demonstration enrollees were greater than they would have been if these enrollees had remained in the fee-for-service (FFS) system. This loss was driven by the lower than average predicted Medicare spending given the demonstration patients' conditions. The sites experienced losses or only modest gains, primarily because they provided a larger benefit package than traditional Medicare coverage, including no patient obligations and other benefits, especially prescription drugs. Patient financial benefits were approximately $9,000 annually.