"The problem is people don't know how to talk to you:" How Medicaid recipients understand and use health plan report cards and instruction sheets.

This study sought to understand low income, ethnically diverse individuals' needs, comprehension, and opinions of comparative quality information as presented in state Medicaid health plan report cards (HPRCs). Twenty-two focus groups were conducted with urban and rural Medicaid recipients in three ethnic groups. Results showed the wording of some domains was misunderstood and an overabundance of domains that are irrelevant to the individual attenuated attention. Combinations of visual and verbal information and well-organized designs aided attention and comprehension. Stating where the data came from was important. Some key differences between ethnicity and geographic areas were noted.

Defining 'quality' from the patient's perspective: findings from focus groups with Medicaid beneficiaries and implications for public reporting.

BACKGROUND: With an increased emphasis on patient-centred outcomes and research, investigators seek to understand aspects of health care that are most important to patients. Such information is essential for developing report cards that present health-care quality information for consumers, which many states are adopting as a strategy to promote consumer choice. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the processes that women in Medicaid follow for selecting health plans and explored their definitions of 'good' and 'poor' quality health care. DESIGN: We conducted focus groups with Medicaid beneficiaries in four Texas communities, using quota sampling to ensure representation of different racial/ethnic, eligibility and geographic groups. RESULTS: We conducted 22 focus groups with 102 participants between October 2012 and January 2013. In a free-list exercise, 'doctors' represented the most important aspect of health care to participants, followed by cost, attention, coverage and respect. Discussions of health-care quality revealed an even mix of structural factors (e.g. timeliness) and interpersonal factors (e.g. communication), although few differences were observed by beneficiary characteristics. Participants linked themes in their overall framing of 'quality' - revealing processes of care that affect health outcomes (e.g. discontinuity of care resulting from poor communication with providers) and which were often mediated by advocate providers who assisted patients experiencing barriers to services. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Findings support other studies that highlight the importance of the patient-provider relationship. Patient-centred definitions of health-care quality can complement predominant provider-centred conceptual frameworks and better inform initiatives for public reporting of quality measures in these populations.

Let the buyer beware: Content analysis of cosmetic surgery websites' provider information.

Given that many consumers do not understand any licensed physician can perform cosmetic surgery, cosmetic procedure advertising regulation is lacking and differs by state; and consumers often search for providers online and rely on the site's information. Cosmetic surgery websites have the potential to be a threat to consumers' safety and health. This study asked what types of physician information do cosmetic surgery websites supply. A content analysis was conducted with 873 physicians' information provided on cosmetic surgery websites in the top 10 cosmetic surgery cities, finding members of plastic surgery associations and core providers were more likely to list medical qualifications. All physicians were unlikely to list experience. Two-thirds stated their specific board certification, and 15% to 30% in each city failed to follow their state's regulations for disclosing board certification. The study concludes by suggesting national ethical guidelines.