Factors associated with self-reports of limitations in activities of daily living among Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients.

BACKGROUND: Physical function is an important indicator of physical health and predicts mortality. This study identified characteristics associated with limitations in Medicare recipients' activities of daily living. METHODS: 2019 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Fee-for-Service Medicare Survey data: 79,725 respondents (34% response rate) who were 65 and older and 53% female; 7% Black, 5% Hispanic, 4% Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander, 2% Multiracial, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native; 35% with high school education or less. Walking, getting in and out of chairs, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating (scored as having no difficulty versus being able to do with difficulty or unable to do) and a scale of these items were regressed on patient characteristics. RESULTS: After adjustment for all characteristics, function limitations were found for those who smoked (effect sizes of significant associations range .04-.13), had chronic health conditions (.02-.33), were 85 years or older (.09-.46), needed assistance completing the survey (.32-1.29), were female (.05-.07), and had low income and assets (.15-.47). CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative U.S. estimates of physical function characteristics are useful for interventions for vulnerable population subgroups.

Medicare Advantage enrollees' reports of unfair treatment during health care encounters.

We investigated unfair treatment among 1863 Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees from 21 MA plans using 2022 survey data (40% response rate) in which respondents indicated whether they were treated unfairly in a health care setting based on any of 10 personal characteristics. We calculated reported unfair treatment rates overall and by enrollee characteristics. Nine percent of respondents reported any unfair treatment, most often based on health condition (6%), disability (3%), or age (2%). Approximately 40% of those reporting any unfair treatment endorsed multiple categories. People who qualified for Medicare via disability reported unfair treatment by disability, age, income, race and ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender/gender identity more often than those who qualified via age. Enrollees dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid or eligible for a Low-Income Subsidy (DE/LIS) reported unfair treatment by disability, income, language/accent, race and ethnicity, culture/religion, and sex more often than non-DE/LIS enrollees. Compared with White respondents, racial and ethnic minority respondents more often reported unfair treatment by race and ethnicity, language/accent, culture/religion, and income. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to report unfair treatment based on age and sex.

Which medicare advantage enrollees are at highest one-year mortality risk?

BACKGROUND: While a number of tools exist to predict mortality among older adults, less research has described the characteristics of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees at higher risk for 1 year mortality. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of MA enrollees at higher mortality risk using patient survey data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUBJECTS: MA enrollees completing the 2019 MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey. MEASURES: Linked demographic, health, and mortality data from a sample of MA enrollees were used to predict 1-year mortality risk and describe enrollee characteristics across levels of predicted mortality risk. RESULTS: The mortality model had a 0.80 c-statistic. Mortality risks were skewed: 6 % of enrollees had a ≥ 10 % 1-year mortality risk, while 45 % of enrollees had 1 % to < 5 % 1-year mortality risk. Among the high-risk (≥10 %) group, 47 % were age 85+ versus 12 % among those with mortality risk <5 %. 79 % were in fair or poor self-rated health versus 29 % among those with mortality risk of <5 %. 71 % reported needing urgent care in the prior 6 months versus 40 % among those with a mortality risk of 1 to<5 %. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively few older adults enrolled in MA are at high 1-year mortality risk. Nonetheless, MA enrollees over age 85, in fair or poor health, or with recent urgent care needs are far more likely to be in a high mortality risk group.

Measuring Equity in the Hospital Setting: An HCAHPS Application of the Health Equity Summary Score.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality varies by patient factors, including race-and-ethnicity and preferred language. Addressing inequities requires identifying them and incentivizing equity. OBJECTIVES: We apply an approach first implemented in the Medicare Advantage setting to measure equity in patient experiences by race-and-ethnicity [Asian American and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (AA and NHPI), Black, Hispanic, vs. White] and language preference (English-preferring vs. another-language-preferring). We identify characteristics of hospitals providing high-quality equitable care. RESEARCH DESIGN: We estimated, standardized, and combined performance measures into a Health Equity Summary Score (HESS) using 2016-2019 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey data. The HCAHPS HESS considered current cross-sectional performance, within-hospital improvement, and overall improvement by race-and-ethnicity and language preference. SUBJECTS: A total of 3333 US hospitals with 2019 HCAHPS Star Ratings. RESULTS: The HCAHPS HESS was calculable for 44% of hospitals. High-scoring (4-5 diamonds on a 1-diamond to 5-diamond scale) hospitals tended to be smaller than intermediate-scoring [3 diamonds (14% of high-scoring hospitals had <100 beds vs. 7% of intermediate-scoring hospitals, P <0.001) and were less often for-profit (20% vs. 31%, P <0.001)]. While a significant percentage (29%) of patients served by high-scoring hospitals were AA and NHPI, Black, or Hispanic, and 9% were another-language-preferring, there were smaller proportions of Black and Hispanic patients in high-scoring versus other hospitals. HESS performance was negatively associated with the percentage of patients preferring another language to English. HESS scores were moderately correlated with overall Star Ratings ( r =0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The HCAHPS HESS and practices of high-scoring hospitals could promote more equitable patient experiences.

Poor self-rated mental health and Medicare beneficiaries' routine care-seeking.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between self-rated mental health (SRMH) and infrequent routine care among Medicare beneficiaries and to investigate the roles of managed care and having a personal doctor. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2018 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. METHODS: Logistic regression was used to predict infrequent routine care (having not made an appointment for routine care in the last 6 months) from SRMH, Medicare coverage type (fee-for-service [FFS] vs Medicare Advantage [MA], the managed care version of Medicare), and the interaction of these variables. Models that did and did not include having a personal doctor were compared. All models controlled for demographics and physical health. RESULTS: Overall, 14.9% of beneficiaries did not make a routine care appointment in the last 6 months, with rates adjusted for demographics and physical health ranging from 14.5% for those with "excellent" SRMH to 19.2% for those with "poor" SRMH. Beneficiaries with poor SRMH were less likely to make a routine care appointment in FFS than in MA (20.1% vs 16.4%, respectively, had not done so in the last 6 months; P < .05). Accounting for having a personal doctor reduced the association between SRMH and infrequent routine care by about a third. CONCLUSIONS: Extra efforts are needed to ensure receipt of routine care by beneficiaries with poor mental health-particularly in FFS, where more should be done to ensure that beneficiaries have a personal doctor.

Measuring Inconsistency in Quality Across Patient Groups to Target Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) may be aimed at improving care for all patients, or it may be targeted at only certain patient groups. Health care providers have little guidance when determining when targeted QI may be preferred. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to develop a method for quantifying performance inconsistency and guidelines for when inconsistency indicates targeted QI, which we apply to the performance of health plans for different patient groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND MEASURES: Retrospective analysis of 7 Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures of clinical care quality. SUBJECTS: All Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries eligible for any of 7 HEDIS measures 2015-2018. RESULTS: MA plans with higher overall performance tended to be less inconsistent in their performance (r=-0.2) across groups defined by race-and-ethnicity and low-income status (ie, dual eligibility for Medicaid or receipt of Low-Income Subsidy). Plan characteristics were usually associated with only small differences in inconsistency. The characteristics associated with differences in consistency [eg, size, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) status] were also associated with differences in overall performance. We identified 9 (of 363) plans that had large inconsistency in performance across groups (>0.8 SD) and investigated the reasons for inconsistency for 2 example plans. CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed inconsistency metric may help those designing and evaluating QI efforts to appropriately determine when targeted QI is preferred. It can be used in settings where performance varies across groups, which can be defined by patient characteristics, geographic areas, hospital wards, etc. Effectively targeting QI efforts is essential in today's resource-constrained health care environment.

Community-dwelling adults with functional limitations are at greater risk for sleep disturbances.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether sleep disturbances vary along a continuum of functional limitations in a large nationally representative sample of US adults. METHODS: Using 2014-2015 National Health Interview Survey data (n = 33,424), we considered associations between each of 5 sleep disturbance measures (duration, trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep, use of sleep medications, waking rested) and Functional Limitations Index score, which distinguishes among adults with little-or-no (least-limited), moderate (somewhat-limited), and high functional limitations (most-limited). RESULTS: Somewhat-limited and most-limited respondents reported significantly worse sleep health for all sleep disturbance measures than people with little-or-no limitations, even controlling for body mass index, psychological distress, and 14 health indicators. CONCLUSIONS: People with significant self-reported limitations in physical functioning, independent of specific disabilities or disabling condition, report more sleep disturbances. Clinicians may want to evaluate the sleep health of patients with functional limitations.

Distinguishing neighborhood and individual social risk factors in health care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate (a) the magnitude of the independent associations of neighborhood-level and person-level social risk factors (SRFs) with quality, (b) whether neighborhood-level SRF associations may be proxies for person-level SRF associations, and (c) how the association of person-level SRFs and quality varies by neighborhood-level SRFs. DATA SOURCES: 2015-2016 Medicare Advantage HEDIS data, Medicare beneficiary administrative data, and 2016 American Community Survey (ACS). STUDY DESIGN: Mixed effects linear regression models (1) estimated overall inequities by neighborhood-level and person-level SRFs, (2) compared neighborhood-level associations to person-level associations, and (3) tested the interactions of person-level SRFs with corresponding neighborhood-level SRFs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Beneficiary-level SES and disability administrative data and five-year ACS neighborhood-level SRF information were each linked to HEDIS data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For all or nearly all HEDIS measures, quality was worse in neighborhoods lower in SES and in neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents with a disability. Quality by neighborhood racial and ethnic composition was mixed. Accounting for corresponding person-level SRFs reduced neighborhood SRF associations by 25% for disability, 43% for SES, and 74%-102% for racial and ethnic groups. Person-level SRF coefficients were not consistently reduced in models that added neighborhood-level SRFs. In 19 of 35 instances, there were significant (p < 0.05) interactions between neighborhood-level and corresponding person-level SRFs. Significant interactions were always positive for disability, SES, Black, and Hispanic, indicating more negative neighborhood effects for people with SRFs that did not match their neighborhood and more positive neighborhood effects for people with SRFs that matched their neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS: Relying solely on neighborhood-level SRF models that omit similar person-level SRFs overattributes inequities to neighborhood characteristics. Neighborhood-level characteristics account for much less variation in these measures' scores than similar person-level SRFs. Inequity-reduction programs may be most effective when targeting neighborhoods with a high proportion of people with a given SRF.

Rates of Disenrollment From Medicare Advantage Plans Are Higher for Racial/Ethnic Minority Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Each year, about 10% of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees voluntarily switch to another MA contract, while another 2% voluntarily switch from MA to fee-for-service Medicare. Voluntary disenrollment from MA plans is related to beneficiaries' negative experiences with their plan, disrupts the continuity of care, and conflicts with goals to reduce Medicare costs. Little is known about racial/ethnic disparities in voluntary disenrollment from MA plans. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate differences in rates of voluntary disenrollment from MA plans by race/ethnicity. SUBJECTS: A total of 116,770,319 beneficiaries enrolled in 736 MA plans in 2015. METHODS: Differences in rates of disenrollment across racial/ethnic groups [Asian or Pacific Islander (API), Black, Hispanic, and White] were summarized using 4 types of logistic regression models: adjusted and unadjusted models estimating overall differences and adjusted and unadjusted models estimating within-plan differences. Unadjusted overall models included only racial/ethnic group probabilities as predictors. Adjusted overall models added age, sex, dual eligibility, disability, and state of residence as control variables. Between-plan differences were estimated by subtracting within-plan differences from overall differences. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of disenrollment were significantly (P<0.001) higher for Hispanic (+1.2 percentage points), Black (+1.2 percentage points), and API beneficiaries (+2.4 percentage points) than for Whites. Within states, all 3 racial/ethnic minority groups tended to be concentrated in higher disenrollment plans. Within plans, API beneficiaries voluntarily disenrolled considerably more often than otherwise similar White beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest the need to address cost, information, and other factors that may create barriers to racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries' enrollment in plans with lower overall disenrollment rates.

Do dual eligible beneficiaries experience better health care in special needs plans?

OBJECTIVE: Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) were intended to provide better care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid through better coordination of these two programs. DATA SOURCES: 671 913 dual eligible (DE) respondents to the 2009-2019 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the 2015-2019 experiences of DE beneficiaries in D-SNPs relative to fee-for-service Medicare (FFS) and non-SNP Medicare Advantage (MA) using propensity-score weighted linear regression. Comparisons were made to 2009-2014. 12 patient experience measures were considered. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Annual mail survey with telephone follow-up of non-respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: More than 65% of DE beneficiaries enrolled in FFS. Of 12 measures, D-SNP performance was higher than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), lower than non-SNP MA on two (P < .05), and higher than FFS on four (P < .01). DE beneficiaries did not report better coordination of care in D-SNPs. D-SNP performance was often worse than other coverage types in prior periods. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to FFS Medicare, DE beneficiaries report higher immunization rates in D-SNPs, but slight or no better performance on other dimensions of patient experience. New requirements in 2021 may help D-SNPs attain their goal of better care coordination.

Incentivizing Excellent Care to At-Risk Groups with a Health Equity Summary Score.

BACKGROUND: Social risk factors (SRFs) such as minority race-and-ethnicity or low income are associated with quality-of-care, health, and healthcare outcomes. Organizations might prioritize improving care for easier-to-treat groups over those with SRFs, but measuring, reporting, and further incentivizing quality-of-care for SRF groups may improve their care. OBJECTIVE: To develop, as a proof-of-concept, a Health Equity Summary Score (HESS): a succinct, easy-to-understand score that could be used to promote high-quality care to those with SRFs in Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans, which provide care for almost twenty million older and disabled Americans and collect extensive quality measure and SRF data. DESIGN: We estimated, standardized, and combined performance scores for two sets of quality measures for enrollees in 2013-2016 MA health plans, considering both current levels of care, within-plan improvement, and nationally benchmarked improvement for those with SRFs (specifically, racial-and-ethnic minority status and dual-eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid). PARTICIPANTS: All MA plans with publicly reported quality scores and 500 or more 2016 enrollees. MAIN MEASURES: Publicly reported clinical quality and patient experience measures. KEY RESULTS: Almost 90% of plans measured for MA Star Ratings received a HESS; plans serving few patients with SRFs were excluded. The summary score was moderately positively correlated with publicly reported overall Star Ratings (r = 0.66-0.67). High-scoring plans typically had sizable enrollment of both racial-and-ethnic minorities (38-42%) and dually eligible beneficiaries (29-38%). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of developing and estimating a HESS that is intended to promote and incentivize excellent care for racial-and-ethnic minorities and dually eligible MA enrollees. The HESS measures SRF-specific performance and does not simply duplicate overall plan Star Ratings. It also identifies plans that provide excellent care to large numbers of those with SRFs. Our methodology could be extended to other SRFs, quality measures, and settings.

Associations of Mail Survey Length and Layout With Response Rates.

We assess the association between survey layout and response rates (RRs) in the 2017 Medicare Advantage Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems mail survey. Among 438 Medicare Advantage plans surveyed by six vendors, there was latitude in survey layout, and plans could add up to 12 supplemental items. Regression models predicted survey response from survey characteristics (page count, number of supplemental items, and survey attractiveness), and beneficiary sociodemographics. Beneficiary-age-by-survey-characteristic interactions assessed whether survey characteristics were more strongly related to RRs among older beneficiaries. We found that surveys with more supplemental items and less attractive layouts had lower adjusted odds of response. RRs were more sensitive to format among older beneficiaries. The difference in adjusted RRs for the most favorable versus the least favorable survey design was 14.5%. For a 65-year-old, this difference was 13.6%; for an 80-year-old, it was 21.0%. These findings suggest that even within a relatively standardized survey, formatting can substantially influence RRs.

The development of a patient-reported functional limitations index.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an easy-to-interpret, patient-reported Functional Limitations Index (FLI) that can be used to assess and monitor the full spectrum of functioning in a community-dwelling population. STUDY DESIGN: Observational design using nationally representative survey data. METHODS: We used self-rated health as a criterion for empirically assigning weights to 5 National Health Interview Survey items assessing difficulty with seeing, hearing, walking, cognition, and self-care. In addition to succinctly summarizing cumulative limitations, we addressed 2 main questions: (1) Which limitations have stronger associations with self-rated health? and (2) How does severity (from 0, no difficulty, to 3, unable to do) relate to self-rated health? We generated a respondent-level summary score based on a model predicting self-rated health from the 5 linearly scored (0-3) items and used splines to account for nonlinear severity-self-rated health associations. RESULTS: The strongest association of specific functional limitations with self-rated health involved mobility; the weakest associations involved sensory limitations. The association of severity with self-rated health was nonlinear and largest moving from no difficulty to somewhat difficult. Nationally, 5% of noninstitutionalized adults were considered most limited, 8% somewhat limited, and 87% least limited. Great mobility limitations (defined as a lot of difficulty or unable to do) most distinguished limitation groups (present in 0% of least limited, 25% of somewhat limited, and 70% of most limited). CONCLUSIONS: The FLI is an easy-to-administer, easy-to-interpret, and valid summary measure of disability that health plans and health care organizations can use for quality-of-care monitoring across a variety of settings to improve care for patients with disabilities.

Using Ancillary Sociodemographic Data to Identify Sexual Minority Adults Among Those Responding "Something Else" or "Don't Know" to Sexual Orientation Questions.

BACKGROUND: General population surveys are increasingly offering broader response options for questions on sexual orientation-for example, not only gay or lesbian, but also "something else" (SE) and "don't know" (DK). However, these additional response options are potentially confusing for those who may not know what the terms mean. Researchers studying sexual orientation-based disparities face difficult methodological trade-offs regarding how best to classify respondents identifying with the SE and DK categories. OBJECTIVES: Develop respondent-level probabilities of sexual minority orientation without excluding or misclassifying the potentially ambiguous SE and DK responses. Compare 3 increasingly inclusive analytic approaches for estimating health disparities using a single item: (a) omitting SE and DK respondents; (b) classifying SE as sexual minority and omitting DK; and (c) a new approach classifying only SE and DK respondents with >50% predicted probabilities of being sexual minorities as sexual minority. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the sociodemographic information and follow-up questions for SE and DK respondents in the 2013-2014 National Health Interview Survey to generate predicted probabilities of identifying as a sexual minority adult. RESULTS: About 94% of the 144 SE respondents and 20% of the 310 DK respondents were predicted to identify as a sexual minority adult, with higher probabilities for younger, wealthier, non-Hispanic white, and urban-dwelling respondents. Using a more specific definition of sexual minority orientation improved the precision of health and health care disparity estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Predicted probabilities of sexual minority orientation may be used in this and other surveys to improve representation and categorization of those who identify as a sexual minority adult.

The effects of survey version on patient experience scores and plan rankings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of changing survey questions on plan-level patient experience measures and ratings. DATA SOURCE: 2015 Medicare Advantage CAHPS Survey respondents. STUDY DESIGN: Ninety three randomly selected beneficiaries in each of 40 MA plans received a revised (5.0) CAHPS survey; 38 832 beneficiaries received version 4.0. Linear mixed-effect regression predicted CAHPS measures from fixed effects for survey version and beneficiary characteristics and random effects for plan and plan-by-version random slope. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Response rates were 42 percent for both versions. Removal of "try to" from screeners increased the percentage of respondents eligible for follow-up questions. Version 5.0 caused a small increase (1-3 points on a 0-100 scale, P < 0.05) in the mean of three altered measures and a moderate increase (>3 points) in one. There was a small statistically significant increase in two unaltered measures. These changes were uniform across plans, so there would be no expected change compared to results using the legacy survey in the score distributions other than uniform mean shifts, and no expected effect on summary measures. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses illustrate how to assess the impact of seemingly minor survey modifications for other national surveys considering changes and highlight the importance of screeners in instrument design.

Medicare Beneficiaries With a Specialist as Their Personal Doctor Report Better Experiences With Care.

BACKGROUND: Health plans often require that patients have a personal doctor. Older adults rely on specialists for much of their care and may use a specialist in this role, but little is known about how many or which Medicare beneficiaries use specialists as their personal doctor and how their care experiences differ from others'. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries with a specialist as a personal doctor and compare their patient experiences and immunization to other beneficiaries'. RESEARCH DESIGN: Logistic regression predicted having a specialist as a personal doctor from beneficiary characteristics. Doubly-robust models compared 7 patient experience and 2 immunization measures for beneficiaries with and without a specialist as their personal doctor. Interactions of a specialist indicator and beneficiary characteristics tested for moderators. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 227,642 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ who reported having a personal doctor on the 2014 Medicare CAHPS survey. RESULTS: In total, 20% of beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor was a specialist, fewer than previously reported for the most frequently visited physician (43%); beneficiaries who were older, less healthy, less educated, racial/ethnic minorities, had fee-for-service coverage, or had lower income were more likely to do so. They also reported better patient experiences than those with nonspecialist personal physicians on 6 of 7 measures and more immunizations; the largest difference was for care coordination. Having a specialist personal doctor was associated with particularly positive patient experience for low income, Black, Hispanic, and less healthy beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Future research should investigate whether specialists as personal doctors may reduce patient-experience disparities for vulnerable patients.

Psychometric evaluation of the Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plan disenrollment reasons survey.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and assess the reliability and validity of composite measures of reasons for disenrollment from Medicare Advantage (MA) and prescription drug plans (PDPs). DATA SOURCE: Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plan Disenrollment Reasons Survey. STUDY DESIGN: Separate multilevel factor analyses of MA and PDP data suggested groupings of survey items to form composite measures, for which internal consistency and interunit reliability were estimated. The association of each composite with an overall plan rating was examined to evaluate criterion validity. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five composites were identified: financial reasons for disenrollment; problems with prescription drug benefits and coverage; problems getting information and help from the plan; problems getting needed care, coverage, and cost information; and problems with coverage of doctors and hospitals. Beneficiary-level internal consistency reliability exceeded 0.70 for all but one composite (financial reasons); plan-level internal consistency reliability exceeded 0.80 for all composites; average interunit reliability for plans with ≥ 30 survey completes exceeded 0.75 for 3 of 5 composites. As expected, greater endorsement of reasons for disenrollment was associated with lower overall plan ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The Disenrollment Reasons Survey provides a reliable and valid assessment of beneficiaries' reasons for leaving their plans. Multiple reasons for disenrollment may indicate especially poor experiences.

National racial/ethnic and geographic disparities in experiences with health care among adult Medicaid beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether health care experiences of adult Medicaid beneficiaries differ by race/ethnicity and rural/urban status. DATA SOURCES: A total of 270 243 respondents to the 2014-2015 Nationwide Adult Medicaid Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey. STUDY DESIGN: Linear regression was used to estimate case mix adjusted differences in patient experience between racial/ethnic minority and non-Hispanic white Medicaid beneficiaries, and between beneficiaries residing in small urban areas, small towns, and rural areas vs large urban areas. Dependent measures included getting needed care, getting care quickly, doctor communication, and customer service. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with white beneficiaries, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) beneficiaries reported worse experiences, while black beneficiaries reported better experiences. Deficits for AIAN beneficiaries were 6-8 points on a 0-100 scale; deficits for API beneficiaries were 13-22 points (P's < 0.001); advantages for black beneficiaries were 3-5 points (P's < 0.001). Hispanic white differences were mixed. Beneficiaries in small urban areas, small towns, and isolated rural areas reported significantly better experiences (2-3 points) than beneficiaries in large urban areas (P's < 0.05), particularly regarding access to care. Racial/ethnic differences typically did not vary by geography. CONCLUSIONS: Improving experiences for racial/ethnic minorities and individuals living in large urban areas should be high priorities for policy makers exploring approaches to improve the value and delivery of care to Medicaid beneficiaries.

Using predicted Spanish preference to target bilingual mailings in a mail survey with telephone follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Spanish-preferring Medicare beneficiaries are underrepresented in national patient experience surveys. We test a method for improving their representation via higher response rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: 2009-2010 Medicare CAHPS surveys; Medicare population. STUDY DESIGN: We used surname and address to predict Spanish-language preference for a national sample of 177 139 beneficiaries. We randomized half of the 10 000 non-Puerto Rico beneficiaries with the highest predicted probabilities of Spanish preference (>10 percent) to bilingual mailings (intervention) and half to standard English-only mailings (control). DATA COLLECTION: Medicare CAHPS Survey data were collected through mail surveys with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Mail response rate was higher for intervention (28.7 percent) than control (23.9 percent) (P < 0.0001); phone response rates among mail nonrespondents were similar in intervention and control arms (15.8 percent vs 15.7 percent, P = 0.90). Targeted bilingual mailings induced 6.5 percent of those who would not have responded to respond by mail and 54.0 percent of those who would have responded in English to respond in Spanish. Beneficiaries with greater Spanish probabilities showed greater increases in response rates, a higher proportion of responses in Spanish, and lower control response rates among. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted bilingual mailing of mixed-mode surveys using commonly available surname and address information can efficiently increase representation of this underrepresented group.