Choosing a Provider: What Factors Matter Most to Consumers and Patients?

Disparities in Healthcare-Seeking Behavior and Decision Preference Among Hispanics: A Comparative Study Across Races/Ethnicities, SES, and Provider Types

Purpose

Hispanics, the largest minority in America, have increased risk of several medical issues and face noteworthy health disparities. This study compares care-seeking behaviors and choice experience among Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and Whites, considering SES (income, education, and insurance status) and across five healthcare provider (HCP) types. Concurrent analysis provides a comprehensive view of how and where inequity manifests in healthcare.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey assessed 1485 adults (Hispanic=314, Asian=313, Black=316, White=542, recruited through a panel agency) of the frequency of visiting primary care providers, dentists, optometrists, gynecologists, and specialists for chronic conditions. Participants also rated the importance of self-selecting a HCP and difficulty in finding one.

Results

Whites visited each HCP most regularly. Compared to Asians, more Hispanics saw specialists regularly (45.1% vs 56.5%, p=0.042), and Blacks saw dentists less (47.0% vs 38.3%, p=0.028) and gynecologists more often (21.2% vs 33.1%, p=0.024). No other frequency differences were observed among minorities. Low-income participants across four races saw dentists and gynecologists with comparable infrequency. Hispanics and Asians assigned similarly significantly lower self-choice importance and experienced more difficulty relative to Whites or Blacks. Participants with lower income or education visited HCPs less regularly yet perceived the same choice importance as higher-SES peers (p>0.05). Notably, discrepancies in visit frequency between Whites and minorities were more pronounced in higher-SES than lower-SES group. Differences in experiencing care-seeking difficulty were associated with income (p=0.029) and insurance type (p=0.009) but not education (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Higher income and education increase healthcare utilization; however, racial disparities persist, particularly among higher-SES groups. Despite similarities among minorities, the extent of disparities varied by SES and provider type. The findings help explain evident inequity in healthcare access and health outcomes. Tailored patient education, culturally-specific navigation support, and more inclusive services are needed to address barriers faced by minorities and disadvantaged populations.

Hospital Rating Organizations' Quality and Patient Safety Scores: Analysis of Result Discrepancies

BACKGROUND

In the USA, multiple organizations rate hospitals based on quality and patient safety data, but few studies have analyzed and compared the rating results.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the results of different US hospital-rating organizations.

DESIGN

Observational data analysis of US acute care hospital ratings.

PARTICIPANTS

Four rating organizations: Hospital Compare® (HC), Healthgrades® (HG), The Leapfrog Group® (Leapfrog), and US News and World Report® (USN).

MAIN MEASURES

We analyzed the level of concordance (similar ranking), discordance (difference of 1 or more rankings), and severe discordance (difference of two or more rankings), as well as differences and correlations between the scores.

KEY RESULTS

From Feb 1 to Oct 3, 2023, we analyzed data from 2,384 hospitals. In Leapfrog, there were 688 hospitals (29%) with Grade A, 652 (27.3%) with B, 885 (37.1%) with C, 153 (6.4%) with D, and 6 (0.3%) with F. For HC, 333 hospitals (14%) had five stars, 676 (28.4%) four, 695 (29.2%) three, 502 (21.4%) two, and 171 (7.2%) one-star. In ratings between HC and Leapfrog, discordance was 70%, and severe discordance was 25.1%. USN ranked 469 hospitals (19.7%). Within the USN-ranked hospital group, there was a 62% discordance and 19.8% severe discordance between HC and Leapfrog. The analysis of orthopedic procedures from HG and USN showed discordance ranging from 48 to 61.2%.

CONCLUSION

The rating organizations' reported metrics were highly discordant. A hospital's ranking by one organization frequently did not correspond to a similar ranking by another. The methodology and included timeline and patient population can help explain the differences. However, the discordant ratings may confuse patients and customers.

Choosing a maternity hospital: a matter of travel distance or quality of care?

BACKGROUND

The choice of a hospital should be based on individual need and accessibility. For maternity hospitals, this includes known or expected risk factors, the geographic accessibility and level of care provided by the hospital. This study aims to identify factors influencing hospital choice with the aim to analyze if and how many deliveries are conducted in a risk-appropriate and accessible setting in Bavaria, Germany.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional secondary data analysis based on all first births in Bavaria (2015-18) provided by the Bavarian Quality Assurance Institute for Medical Care. Information on the mother and on the hospital were included. The Bavarian Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 was used to account for area-level socioeconomic differences. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the strength of association of the predicting factors and to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

We included 195,087 births. Distances to perinatal centers were longer than to other hospitals (16 km vs. 12 km). 10% of women with documented risk pregnancies did not deliver in a perinatal center. Regressions showed that higher age (OR 1.03; 1.02-1.03 95%-CI) and risk pregnancy (OR 1.44; 1.41-1.47 95%-CI) were associated with choosing a perinatal center. The distances travelled show high regional variation with a strong urban-rural divide.

CONCLUSION

In a health system with free choice of hospitals, many women chose a hospital close to home and/or according to their risks. However, this is not the case for 10% of mothers, a group that would benefit from more coordinated care.

Voice of the Customer: Factors Impacting Beneficiary Choice of Programs in TRICARE

Little is known about how a consumer would choose a health plan if cost was not an option such as in the Military Health System. We sought to identify how to recruit TRICARE beneficiaries into new pilot programs challenged by low recruitment. We developed a semistructured interview guide by adapting a framework established by Klinkman to assess factors in choosing a health plan. Using social media platforms, we recruited TRICARE Prime and Select beneficiaries to participate in key informant interviews from October to December 2022. We conducted inductive thematic analysis to determine key areas of concern. We interviewed a total of 20 TRICARE Prime and Select beneficiaries. The majority were women, above age 40, had a master's degree, a sponsor in the US Army and of senior officer rank. Four overarching themes emerged: (I) patient choice; (II) access to care; (III) quality of care; and (IV) cost. This evaluation of TRICARE beneficiaries explores how to motivate high-quality value-based care in a traditionally fee for service system.

VA-Delivered or VA-Purchased Care: Important Factors for Veterans Navigating Care Decisions

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The VA MISSION Act aimed to increase Veterans' access to care by allowing eligible Veterans to use VA-paid care from non-VA providers ("VA-purchased care"). We interviewed Veterans who were eligible for both VA-delivered and VA-purchased care to examine factors they consider when making decisions about whether to use VA-delivered or VA-purchased care.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 Veterans across the USA who were eligible for VA-delivered and VA-purchased care, using deductive and inductive analysis to develop themes. Participants were recruited from a survey about healthcare access and decision-making. More than half of participants lived in rural areas, 21 were men, and 25 were > 50 years old.

KEY RESULTS

Veteran participants identified (1) high-quality relationships with providers based on mutual trust, empathy, authenticity, and continuity of care, and (2) a positive environment or "eco-system of care" characterized by supportive interactions with staff and other Veterans, and exemplary customer service as integral to their decisions about where to receive care. These preferences influenced their engagement with VA and non-VA providers. We discovered corresponding findings related to Veterans' information needs. When making decisions around where to receive care, participants said they would like more information about VA and non-VA providers and services, and about coordination of care and referrals, including understanding processes and implications of utilizing VA-purchased care.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Current VA-purchased care eligibility determinations focus on common access metrics (e.g., wait times, distance to care). Yet, Veterans discussed other important factors for navigating care decisions, including patient-provider relationship quality and the larger healthcare environment (e.g., interactions with staff and other Veterans). Our findings point to the need for health systems to collect and provide information on these aspects of care to ensure care decisions reflect what is important to Veterans when navigating where to receive care.