Managed Care and Patient-Rated Quality of Care from Primary Physicians

Changes in Work Characteristics and Pediatrician Satisfaction: 2012-2020

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association of changes in pediatricians' work characteristics with their satisfaction using longitudinal data.

METHODS

Data from a cohort study, the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatrician Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES), were used to examine self-reported work satisfaction from 2012 to 2020 among 2002-2004 and 2009-2011 residency graduates (N = 1794). Drawing from the Physician Worklife Study, work satisfaction was measured as a 4-item scale score and averaged [range, 1 (low)-5 (high)]. Mixed effects linear regression for longitudinal analysis examined work satisfaction with year as the lone explanatory variable and then with 11 variables that might change over time (time variant) to assess how changes in work might be linked to increased or decreased satisfaction.

RESULTS

In total, 85.9% of pediatricians in 2020 (September-December) thought their work was personally rewarding. Overall mean work satisfaction scale score displayed a small but significant (P < .001) decrease over time (3.80 in 2012 to 3.69 in 2020). Mixed effects modeling identified several changes associated with increasing work satisfaction over time: increased flexibility in work hours (B = 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.25) and personal support from physician colleagues (B = 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.21) had the largest associations. Pediatricians reporting increased stress balancing work and personal responsibilities and increased work hours had decreased satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Early- to midcareer pediatricians expressed high levels of work satisfaction, though, satisfaction scale scores decreased slightly over time for the sample overall, including during 2020 (year 1 of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic). Pediatricians reporting increases in flexibility with work hours and colleague support showed the strongest increase in work satisfaction.

Corporatization of pain medicine: implications for widening pain care disparities

The current health care system in the United States is structured in a way that ensures that more opportunity and resources flow to the wealthy and socially advantaged. The values intrinsic to the current profit-oriented culture are directly antithetical to the idea of equitable access. A large body of literature points to disparities in pain treatment and pain outcomes among vulnerable groups. These disparities range from the presence of disproportionately higher numbers and magnitude of risk factors for developing disabling pain, lack of access to primary care providers, analgesics and interventions, lack of referral to pain specialists, longer wait times to receive care, receipt of poor quality of pain care, and lack of geographical access to pharmacies that carry opioids. This article examines the manner in which the profit-oriented culture in medicine has directly and indirectly structured access to pain care, thereby widening pain treatment disparities among vulnerable groups. Specifically, the author argues that the corporatization of pain medicine amplifies disparities in pain outcomes in two ways: 1) directly through driving up the cost of pain care, rendering it inaccessible to the financially vulnerable; and 2) indirectly through an interface with corporate loss-aversion/risk management culture that draws upon irrelevant social characteristics, thus worsening disparities for certain populations. Thus, while financial vulnerability is the core reason for lack of access, it does not fully explain the implications of corporate microculture regarding access. The effect of corporatization on pain medicine must be conceptualized in terms of overt access to facilities, providers, pharmaceuticals, specialty services, and interventions, but also in terms of the indirect or covert effect of corporate culture in shaping clinical interactions and outcomes.

Managed care and patient ratings of the quality of specialty care among patients with pain or depressive symptoms

BACKGROUND

Managed care efforts to regulate access to specialists and reduce costs may lower quality of care. Few studies have examined whether managed care is associated with patient perceptions of the quality of care provided by physician and non-physician specialists. Aim is to determine whether associations exist between managed care controls and patient ratings of the quality of specialty care among primary care patients with pain and depressive symptoms who received specialty care for those conditions.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study design was conducted in the offices of 261 primary physicians in private practice in Seattle in 1997. Patients (N = 17,187) were screened in waiting rooms, yielding a sample of 1,514 patients with pain only, 575 patients with depressive symptoms only, and 761 patients with pain and depressive symptoms. Patients (n = 1,995) completed a 6-month follow-up survey. Of these, 691 patients received specialty care for pain, and 356 patients saw mental health specialists. For each patient, managed care was measured by the intensity of managed care controls in the patient's health plan and primary care office. Quality of specialty care at follow-up was measured by patient rating of care provided by the specialists. Outcomes were pain interference and bothersomeness, Symptom Checklist for Depression, and restricted activity days.

RESULTS

The intensity of managed care controls in health plans and primary care offices was generally not associated with patient ratings of the quality of specialty care. However, pain patients in more-managed primary care offices had lower ratings of the quality of specialty care from physician specialists and ancillary providers.

CONCLUSION

For primary care patients with pain or depressive symptoms and who see specialists, managed care controls may influence ratings of specialty care for patients with pain but not patients with depressive symptoms.

Information and shared decision-making are top patients' priorities

Background

The profound changes in medical care and the recent stress on a patient-centered approach mandate evaluation of current patient priorities.

Methods

Hospitalized and ambulatory patients at an academic medical center in central Israel were investigated. Consecutive patients (n = 274) indicated their first and second priority for a change or improvement in their medical care out of a mixed shortlist of 6 issues, 3 related to patient-physician relationship (being better informed and taking part in decisions; being seen by the same doctor each time; a longer consultation time) and 3 issues related to the organizational aspect of care (easier access to specialists/hospital; shorter queue for tests; less charges for drugs).

Results

Getting more information from the physician and taking part in decisions was the most desirable patient choice, selected by 27.4% as their first priority. The next choices – access and queue – also relate to more patient autonomy and control over that of managed care regulations. Patients studied were least interested in continuity of care, consultation time or cost of drugs. Demographic or clinical variables were not significantly related to patients' choices.

Conclusion

Beyond its many benefits, being informed by their doctor and shared decision making is a top patient priority.

Managed care, physician job satisfaction, and the quality of primary care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the associations between managed care, physician job satisfaction, and the quality of primary care, and to determine whether physician job satisfaction is associated with health outcomes among primary care patients with pain and depressive symptoms.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Offices of 261 primary physicians in private practice in Seattle.

PATIENTS

We screened 17,187 patients in waiting rooms, yielding a sample of 1,514 patients with pain only, 575 patients with depressive symptoms only, and 761 patients with pain and depressive symptoms; 2,004 patients completed a 6-month follow-up survey.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

For each patient, managed care was measured by the intensity of managed care controls in the patient's primary care office, physician financial incentives, and whether the physician read or used back pain and depression guidelines. Physician job satisfaction at baseline was measured through a 6-item scale. Quality of primary care at follow-up was measured by patient rating of care provided by the primary physician, patient trust and confidence in primary physician, quality-of-care index, and continuity of primary physician. Outcomes were pain interference and bothersomeness, Symptom Checklist for Depression, and restricted activity days. Pain and depression patients of physicians with greater job satisfaction had greater trust and confidence in their primary physicians. Pain patients of more satisfied physicians also were less likely to change physicians in the follow-up period. Depression patients of more satisfied physicians had higher ratings of the care provided by their physicians. These associations remained after controlling statistically for managed care. Physician job satisfaction was not associated with health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary care patients with pain or depressive symptoms, primary physician job satisfaction is associated with some measures of patient-rated quality of care but not health outcomes.