Adherence to practice guidelines, clinical outcomes, and costs among Medicaid enrollees with severe mental illnesses.

The treatment of Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with depression or schizophrenia was examined to determine whether adherence to treatment guideline was associated with health care financing strategy, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Individuals in a fee-for-service condition were significantly more likely to receive treatment consistent with guidelines than those in managed care. Mental health costs were higher for individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, individuals in an acute phase of illness at intake into the study, and those receiving treatment consistent with practice guidelines. Being in an acute phase of illness and having treatment that comported with recommended practice guidelines were associated with higher total social costs. Policy implications of the findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Access to health care services among people with chronic or disabling conditions: patterns and predictors.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of access to a variety of specific health care services among people with chronic or disabling conditions, focusing on factors that predict access to services. DESIGN: National survey of 800 adults with cerebral palsy (CP), multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), or arthritis. SETTING: Respondents were surveyed in the general community. PARTICIPANTS: National convenience sample of adults with CP, MS, SCI, or arthritis. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Access to services from primary care doctors, services from specialists, rehabilitative services, assistive equipment, and prescription medications. Cross tabulations and logistic regression analyses were performed on survey data to examine patterns and predictors of access to health care services. RESULTS: Only half of all respondents received needed rehabilitative services. Respondents covered by fee-for-service health plans were more likely than those covered by managed care organizations to receive needed services from specialists. Respondents with the poorest health and with the lowest incomes were the least likely to receive all health services examined. CONCLUSIONS: People with chronic or disabling conditions often require a comprehensive array of health care services. Reform of the current health care payment and delivery structures is needed so that health care is more responsive to those with the greatest service needs.

Health benefits in 2003: premiums reach thirteen-year high as employers adopt new forms of cost sharing.

This paper reports changes in job-based health insurance from spring 2002 to spring 2003. The cost of health insurance rose 13.9 percent, the highest rate of increase since 1990. Employers required larger contributions from employees for the monthly cost of health insurance. Separate copayments and deductibles for hospital services have become commonplace, and provider networks have broadened. There was no change in the percentage of employers offering health plans to their workers. Employers indicate little confidence in any future strategies for controlling health care costs.

Job-based health benefits in 2002: some important trends.

Based on a national survey of 2,014 randomly selected public and private firms with three or more workers, this paper reports changes in employer-based health insurance from spring 2001 to spring 2002. The cost of health insurance rose 12.7 percent, the highest rate of growth since 1990. Employee contributions for health insurance rose in 2002, from $30 to $38 for single coverage and from $150 to $174 for family coverage. Deductibles and copayments rose also, and employers adopted formularies and three-tier cost-sharing formulas to control prescription drug expenses. PPO and HMO enrollment rose, while the percentage of small employers offering health benefits fell. Because increasing claims expenses rather than the underwriting cycle are the major driver of rising premiums, double-digit growth appears likely to continue.

Health plan selection criteria by people with impaired mobility.

BACKGROUND: Many decision-support tools for consumers selecting a health plan include a module measuring peer-group satisfaction with service and quality of care. The most widely used tools are sufficient for most people, but fail to report measures that are important to many individuals with disabilities. OBJECTIVES: To elicit health plan selection and assessment criteria by groups of people with one type of functional impairment arising from different origins. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational study and qualitative analysis of structured focus groups. Content analysis of CAHPS survey instruments. SUBJECTS: Each participant had a mobility impairment arising from spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, rheumatoid arthritis, or multiple sclerosis. Each participant had a choice of health plans. Focus groups were conducted in Phoenix, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. RESULTS: People with mobility impairments arising from the studied conditions desire comparative health plan information on the reliability of transportation to medical appointments, the ability to use an experienced and knowledgeable specialist as a primary provider, and accessible buildings and examination equipment. This study population also seeks information about the experience of their peers in each health plan, especially about benefits administration. CONCLUSIONS: People with mobility impairments arising from spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis currently have little information and little bona fide choice of health plans and physicians. This group of people seeks specific information within the areas of benefit coverage, benefits interpretation and administration, provider panels, accessibility to clinics and equipment, and how to navigate the health plan's grievance and appeals process.

Individual insurance: how much financial protection does it provide?

This paper examines the comparative financial protection provided by individual and group health insurance. Data sources include two national surveys of employer-based health plans and e-health insurance listings for individual coverage on the World Wide Web. Data on the use and cost of services are from the National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES), a national household survey of Americans. We estimate that individual insurance pays on average 63 percent of the health care bill, whereas group health insurance pays 75 percent. Deductibles are much higher in individual insurance, and covered benefits are more meager. At 200 percent of poverty, the top 25 percent of health care users with individual coverage would spend 11 percent of their income for out-of-pocket health care expenses, as opposed to 6 percent for persons with group coverage.