America's health care safety net: revisiting the 2000 IOM report.
(57/167)
The committee that wrote the 2000 Institute of Medicine report on the health care safety net reconvened in 2006 to reflect on the safety net from the perspective of rising numbers of uninsured and underinsured people, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, high immigration levels, and new fiscal and policy pressures on care for vulnerable populations. Safety-net providers now participate in Medicaid managed care but find it difficult to meet growing needs for specialty services, particularly mental health care and affordable prescription drugs. How current state reforms and coverage expansions will affect care for the poor and uninsured is a critical issue. (+info)
Climbing up the pay-for-performance learning curve: where are the early adopters now?
(58/167)
The diffusion of performance-based payment incentives is arguably the most striking change in the U.S. health care system since the managed care era. Because there is little knowledge about best practices, sponsors of payment-incentive programs must learn by doing. We examine the experiences of twenty-seven early adopters and profile the evolution of their pay-for-performance (P4P) strategies as well as perceptions of key lessons learned. Our findings suggest that leading-edge sponsors of P4P have expanded the reach of their efforts, particularly with regard to specialists, and increasingly are focused on outcome and cost-efficiency measures, rather than clinical process measures alone. (+info)
Physician specialty societies and the development of physician performance measures.
(59/167)
Efforts to increase accountability in the delivery of care include attempts to measure performance of individual doctors. Although physician specialty societies may be best positioned to define best practices, they have not yet played a major role in the development of measures. We examined specialty society involvement in measure development through interviews and review of Web sites. We found that a minority (35 percent) of societies were engaged in developing performance measures. Key barriers included member reluctance, lack of resources for development, and problems with data collection; facilitators included strong leadership and the perception of increasing pressure for accountability. (+info)
Pursuing equity: contact with primary care and specialist clinicians by demographics, insurance, and health status.
(60/167)
PURPOSE: Long-term shifts in specialty choice and health workforce policy have raised concern about the future of primary care in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine current use of primary and specialty care across the US population for policy-relevant subgroups, such as disadvantaged populations and persons with chronic illness. METHODS: Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 were analyzed using a probability sample patients or other participants from the noninstitutionalized US population in 2004 (N = 34,403). The main and secondary outcome measures were the estimates of the proportion of Americans who accessed different types of primary care and specialty physicians and midlevel practitioners, as well as the fraction of ambulatory visits accounted for by the different clinician types. Data were disaggregated by income, health insurance status, race/ethnicity, rural or urban residence, and presence of 5 common chronic diseases. RESULTS: Family physicians were the most common clinician type accessed by adults, seniors, and reproductive-age women, and they were second to pediatricians for children. Disadvantaged adults with 3 markers of disadvantage (poverty, disadvantaged minority, uninsured) received 45.6% (95% CI, 40.4%-50.7%) of their ambulatory visits from family physicians vs 30.5% (95% CI, 30.0%-32.1%) for adults with no markers. For children with 3 vs 0 markers of disadvantage, the proportion of visits from family physicians roughly doubled from 16.5% (95% CI, 14.4%-18.6%) to 30.1% (95% CI, 18.8%-41.2%). Family physicians constitute the only clinician group that does not show income disparities in access. Multivariate analyses show that patterns of access to family physicians and nurse-practitioners are more equitable than for other clinician types. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians, especially family physicians, deliver a disproportionate share of ambulatory care to disadvantaged populations. A diminished primary care workforce will leave considerable gaps in US health care equity. Health care workforce policy should reflect this important population-level function of primary care. (+info)
Health care costs and financing in world perspective.
(61/167)
Expenditures for health services, as a percentage of national wealth (gross national product, or GNP), have been rising throughout the world. Data to quantify this trend are available for many industrialized countries. The share of health spending derived from governmental sources has also been increasing. Mandatory or social insurance has developed to support health services in 70 nations. While widely used for paying doctors on a fee basis or by capitation, in Latin America doctors are organized in polyclinics and paid by salaries. General revenues are used to support Ministry of Health programs. Among health expenditures, the largest share goes to hospitalization. Cost sharing by patients is widely used to control rising costs. World trends have promoted equity in health care delivery. (+info)
Don't break out the champagne: continued slowing of health care spending growth unlikely to last.
(62/167)