Physician credentials and practices associated with childhood immunization rates: private practice pediatricians serving poor children in New York City.

Private practice physicians in New York City's poorest neighborhoods are typically foreign trained, have generally substandard clinical practices, and have been accused of rushing Medicaid patients through to turn a profit. However, they also represent a sizable share of physician capacity in medically underserved neighborhoods. This article documents the level of credentials, systems, and immunization-related procedures among these physicians. Furthermore, it assesses the relationship between such characteristics and childhood immunization rates. The analysis utilizes a cross-sectional comparison of immunization rates in 60 private practices that submitted 2,500 or more Medicaid claims for children. Immunization data were gathered from medical records for 2,948 randomly selected children under 3 years of age. Half of sampled physicians were board certified (55%), and half were accepted by the Medicaid Preferred Physicians and Children (PPAC) program (51.7%). Of physicians, 43% saw patients only on a walk-in basis, while only 17% scheduled the next appointment while the patient was still in the office. There were 75% of the physicians who reported usually immunizing at acute care visits. Immunization rates were higher among PPAC physicians compared to others (41% vs. 29% up to date for diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis [DTP]/Haemophilus influenzae type b [Hib], polio, and measles-mumps-rubella [MMR], P = .01), and board-certified physicians showed a trend toward better immunization rates (39% vs. 30%, P =.07). Physicians who reported usually immunizing at acute care visits also had higher rates than those who did not (38% vs. 27%, P = .05). Scheduling a date and time for the next immunization showed a trend toward association with immunization coverage (37% vs. 28%, P= .10). Private practice physicians who provide high volumes of care reimbursed by Medicaid have improved their credentials and affiliations over time, thereby expanding reimbursement options. Credentials and affiliations were at least as effective in distinguishing relatively high- and low-performing physicians, as were immunization-related practices, suggesting that they are useful markers for higher quality care. The relative success of the PPAC program should inform efforts to improve the capacity and quality of primary care for vulnerable children. Appointment and reminder systems that effectively manage the flow of children back into the office for immunizations and the vigilant use of acute care visits for immunizations go hand in hand. Opportunity exists for payers and plans to encourage and support these actions.

Impact of financial incentives on documented immunization rates in the inner city: results of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the effect of 2 financial incentives---bonus and enhanced fee-for-service---on documented immunization rates during a second period of observation. METHODS: Incentives were given to 57 randomly selected inner-city physicians 4 times at 4-month intervals based on the performance of 50 randomly selected children. Coverage from linked records from all sources was determined for a subsample of children within physician offices. RESULTS: Up-to-date coverage rates documented in the charts increased significantly for children in the bonus group (49.7% to 55.6%; P <.05) and the enhanced fee-for-service group (50.8% to 58.2%; P <.01) compared with the control group. The number of immunizations given by these physicians did not change significantly, although the number of immunizations given by others and documented by physicians in the bonus group did increase (P <.05). Up-to-date coverage for all groups increased from 20 to 40 percentage points when immunizations from physician charts were combined with other sources. CONCLUSIONS: Both financial incentives produced a significant increase in coverage levels. Increases were primarily due to better documentation not to better immunizing practices. The financial incentives appeared to provide motivation to physicians but were not sufficient to overcome entrenched behavior patterns. However, true immunization coverage was substantially higher than that documented in the charts.

Comparison of preventive care in Medicaid managed care and Medicaid fee for service in institutions and private practices.

OBJECTIVE: To compare preventive screening for children in Medicaid managed care (MMC) with children in Medicaid fee for service (M-FFS) in private and institutional settings. METHODS: The sample included randomly selected institutions and private practice physicians in New York City. Within setting, children in MMC and M-FFS were sampled randomly and charts reviewed for immunizations and lead and anemia screening. RESULTS: In both institutions and private practices, children enrolled in MMC appeared more likely to be up-to-date than their M-FFS counterparts for immunizations (institution, P <.01; private practice, P <.05), lead screening (institution, P <.01; private practice, P <.01), and anemia screening (institution, P <.01; private practice, P <.01). However, children in MMC had more visits (P <.01) and were followed up for a longer time (P <.01). After controlling for these variables, effects of MMC diminished and only remained significant for screening among private physicians. When considering 10 different attributes of managed care plans, no clear pattern of association with better preventive care services was observed. CONCLUSION: The positive effect of managed care on preventive care services was largely explained by more visits and longer follow-up time; however, there were differences between institutions and private practices, with enrollment in MMC associated with some positive effect on screenings in private practices.

Problems with quality monitoring for Medicaid managed care: perceptions of institutional and private providers in New York City.

The study objective was to examine quality oversight efforts by Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) for children in a sample of ambulatory care institutions and private practices in New York City. This was a cross-sectional study of quality assurance priorities and strategies of MCOs and their impact date in institutions in New York City. Data were from structured interviews administered in 1997 to medical directors in the eight largest MCOs; and medical directors, heads of ambulatory pediatrics, and institutional pediatricians in a random sample of 15 institutions and 20 private office-based providers. Medical directors in MCOs reported that their main priority areas were the preventive care measures (e.g., immunization and lead screening) that they must report to the state. Knowledge of these MCO priority areas and monitoring activities was high for medical directors in the random sample, but decreased from these medical directors to heads of ambulatory pediatrics to institutional pediatricians, with the differences between the medical directors and institutional pediatricians significant (P < .05). However, 96% of the institutional pediatricians reported knowing their own institution's priorities and monitoring activities. In contrast, most private pediatricians reported they knew MCO priorities and monitoring activities (80%). Less than 33% of any group reported activities as "very effective" or felt any incentive to improve performance. There was a high level of overlap in provider networks, with institutions and private providers having children in many MCOs, and MCOs having children in many sites. Conclusions. The current model of quality oversight is producing reports for the state, but is not translating into effective strategies at the provider level. The need to work through the leadership in institutions to influence quality is highlighted. The level of overlap in provider networks suggests the need for collaboration among MCOs in quality monitoring.

The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects on immunization coverage of 3 incentives for physicians--a cash bonus for practice--wide increases, enhanced fee for service, and feedback. METHODS: Incentives were applied at 4-month intervals over 1 year among 60 inner-city office-based pediatricians. At each interval, charts of 50 randomly selected children between 3 and 35 months of age were reviewed per physician. RESULTS: The percentage of children who were up to date for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b; polio; and measles-mumps-rubella immunization in the study's bonus group improved by 25.3 percentage points (P < .01). No significant changes occurred in the other groups. However, percentage of immunizations received outside the participating practice also increased significantly in the bonus group (P < .01). Levels of missed opportunities to immunize were high in all groups and did not change over time. Physicians' knowledge of contraindications was low. CONCLUSIONS: Bonuses sharply and rapidly increased immunization cover-age in medical records. However, much of the increase was the result of better documentation. A bonus is a powerful incentive, but more structure or education may be necessary to achieve the desired results.

The transition from Medicaid fee-for-service to managed care among private practitioners in New York City: effect on immunization and screening rates.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the association between participation in Medicaid managed care and up-to-date coverage for childhood immunizations and screenings among private practice physicians serving New York City's poorest neighborhoods. METHOD: A random sample of 2174 children 3-35 months of age was drawn from 60 physician practices in 1995, and a cross-sectional analysis was used to compare up-to-date status for immunizations, and lead and anemia screening tests, for children cared for by managed care and nonmanaged care physicians. In 1996, an independent sample of 2380 children from the same practices was used to compare up-to-date status for individual children enrolled in Medicaid managed care and children predominantly enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicaid. Information from physician interviews augmented chart review data. Chi-square analysis and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Physicians who participate in Medicaid managed care and those who do not had equal up-to-date coverage for immunizations (41.0 vs. 36.9%, p = .527), and lead (46.8 vs. 38.7%, p = .199) and anemia screening (63.2 vs. 56.5%, p = .272). Measures of the process of care were also similar for the two groups of physicians. Children themselves enrolled in Medicaid managed care appeared significantly more likely to be up-to-date than their nonmanaged care counterparts for immunizations (OR = 1.53, p = .027) and anemia screening (OR = 2.95, p = .000). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in managed care does not seem to change physicians' overall preventive care practice behavior. Available data did not reveal major differences in demographics or health status between individual children enrolled in managed care and those not enrolled. That children enrolled in managed care were better immunized and screened than those in fee-for-service Medicaid suggests that physicians receiving compensation under two payment systems may treat children differently depending on each child's mode of reimbursement.

Effect of the vaccines for children program on inner-city neighborhood physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the probable effect of the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program on immunization coverage. DESIGN: Preintervention and postintervention study design, with data collected before and after enrollment in the VFC program. SETTING: Twenty-three inner-city neighborhood physicians' offices in New York City. PARTICIPANTS: In 1993, 30 physicians were randomly selected from 8 neighborhoods with the highest proportions of Medicaid-eligible individuals in New York City. In 1995-1996, the 30 physicians were contacted again. Twenty-three agreed to an interview and medical record review. Within each office, the medical records of children aged 3 to 35 months, with at least 3 visits in a 3-month or longer period, were randomly selected. Medical record reviews were conducted for 173 eligible children in 1993 and 528 in 1995-1996. INTERVENTIONS: The VFC program was implemented in October 1994. The administration fee increased from $2 to $17.85; physicians received vaccines free. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Up-to-date status for immunizations and lead and tuberculosis screening; percentage of visits that are missed opportunities to immunize; and percentage of visits that were well-child visits. Up-to-date status, missed opportunities to immunize, and well-child visits were compared across time using chi 2 analysis, corrected for the use of cluster sampling. RESULTS: Up-to-date status changed significantly before and alter enrollment in the VFC program (P < .05) for all immunizations and for lead and tuberculosis screening. For the diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and pertussis vaccine, oral poliovirus vaccine, and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine combined, coverage increased from 17.9% to 42.2%, up by 24.3 percentage points (P < .05). Missed opportunities to immunize did not change, but well-child visits increased from 15.0% to 21.6% (P < .05). Physicians generally attributed performance improvements to the VFC program and not to other competing hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: The VFC program seems to be responsible for an increase in immunization rates among these physicians.