How are health plans supporting physician practice? The physician perspective

The role of Medicaid managed care interventions in Chlamydia screening by physicians

BACKGROUND

Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) guidelines call for annual screening of all sexually active young females. In previous studies, Medicaid health maintenance organizations (HMOs) did not consistently recommend CT and other sexually transmitted disease guidelines, but physicians with HMO practices were more likely to comply with guidelines than those without HMO practices. This study examines the relationship between HMO interventions and physician adherence to annual (CT) screening guidelines for sexually active young (ages 15-25) females.

METHODS

Medicaid HMOs (N = 17) of California were surveyed regarding their interventions to increase physician adherence with national CT screening guidelines in 2002. Primary care physicians (N = 941) who contracted with these HMOs were also surveyed on their frequency (always/usually) of CT screening. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

HMO-reported recommendations for CT screening and other interventions were associated with significantly higher odds of frequent CT screening by contracted physicians in unadjusted models. HMO recommendations to screen young females increased the odds of frequent CT screening, but other interventions were no longer significantly associated after controlling for physician characteristics. Physicians also had higher odds of reporting frequent CT screening if they had received training in the past, had received feedback from their contracted HMOs, or reported having access to national CT screening guidelines. Physician gender, specialty, years of clinical experience, and other factors were also significantly associated with the odds of frequency of CT screening.

DISCUSSION

Improving physician adherence with CT screening guidelines requires a refinement of current approaches with targeted interventions that are tailored to the characteristics of physicians. In addition, interventions are more likely to be effective if provided in formats that are perceived and acknowledged by physicians.

Monitoring quality in Israeli primary care: The primary care physicians' perspective

BACKGROUND

Since 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.

GOALS

To assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.

METHOD

The study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.

MAIN FINDINGS

The vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.

The influence of care management tools on physician practice change across organizational settings

BACKGROUND

A study was conducted to assess whether physician reports of practice change were associated with the type of health care organization delivering the tools and the type or number of tools received.

METHODS

A mail survey was sent in 2001 to primary care physicians practicing in the 13 largest urban counties in California.

RESULTS

Physicians were more likely to report a practice change if they received care management tools from a medical group (28%) or a group/staff model health maintenance organization (HMO; 24%) than if they received tools from a health plan (9%; p = .01 and p =.005, respectively). HMO physicians were significantly more likely to receive each type of tool than other physicians. After adjusting for the type or number of tools, the receipt of care management tools from medical groups, but not HMOs, remained a significant predictor of practice change. Physicians reported practice change in association with the number of tools received from a medical group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.06) and the tools received from an independent practice association, health plan, or hospital outside a medical group (AOR 1.21; 95% CI 1.03-1.42).

DISCUSSION

Medical groups have the strongest influence on practice change, whereas group/staff model HMOs have the highest level of implementation.

Primary care provider preferences for working with a collaborative support team

Background

Clinical interventions based on collaborative models require effective communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and collaborative support teams. Despite growing interest in collaborative care, we have identified no published studies describing how PCPs prefer to communicate and interact with collaborative support teams. This manuscript examines the communication and interaction preferences of PCPs participating in an ongoing randomized clinical trial of a collaborative intervention for chronic pain and depression.

Methods

The trial is being conducted in five primary care clinics of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Twenty-one PCPs randomized to the study intervention completed a survey regarding preferences for interacting with the collaborative support team.

Results

A majority of PCPs identified email (95%) and telephone calls (68%) as preferred modes for communicating with members of the support team. In contrast, only 29% identified in-person communications as preferred. Most PCPs preferred that the care manager and physician pain specialist assess patients (76%) and make initial treatment changes (71%) without first conferring with the PCP. One-half wanted to be designated cosigners of all support team notes in the electronic medical record, one-half wanted to receive brief and focused information rather than in-depth information about their patients, and one-half wanted their practice nurses automatically included in communications. Panel size was strongly associated (p < 0.001) with preference for brief, to-the-point discussions about patients.

Conclusion

The substantial variation in PCP communication preferences suggests the need for knowledge of these preferences when designing and implementing collaborative interventions. Additional research is needed to understand relationships between clinician and practice characteristics and interaction preferences.

Physician use of disease management programs

This paper examines differences in availability, use, and perceived usefulness of disease management programs as reported by generalist and specialist physicians functioning as primary care providers in health plans. Implications of these differences are discussed in terms of the three types of purchasers: private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid. The design is a cross-sectional mail and telephone mixed-mode survey. The data come from 23 health plans in five states (Florida, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Washington), including six metropolitan areas: Seattle, New York City, Miami, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Denver. The study participants are 1,244 generalist and specialist physicians who contracted with health plans as primary care providers. They were drawn from a 2001 mail and telephone survey of 2,105 generalist and 1,693 specialist physicians serving commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare patients. Physician responses about use of disease management for their patients in the health plan and how useful they thought it was were regressed on physician, physician organization, and physician-health plan relationship characteristics. While generalist physicians are likely to report having disease management programs available and using them, specialists vary greatly in their response to the disease management programs. In contrast to physicians associated with commercial plans, implementation of disease management programs among physicians associated with Medicaid plans varied across states. Primary care providers trained in generalist areas of practice are more likely than specialists functioning as primary care providers to report that disease management programs are available and to use them. They also find them more useful than do specialists.

Profit-seeking, corporate control, and the trustworthiness of health care organizations: assessments of health plan performance by their affiliated physicians

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative trustworthiness of nonprofit and for-profit health plans, using physician assessments to measure dimensions of plan performance that are difficult for consumers to evaluate.

DATA SOURCE

A nationally representative sample of 1,621 physicians who responded to a special topics module of the 1998 Socioeconomic Monitoring System Survey (SMS), fielded by the American Medical Association. Physicians assessed various aspects of their primary managed care plan, defined as the plan in which they had the largest number of patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Plan ownership was measured as the interaction of tax-exempt status (nonprofit versus for-profit) and corporate control (single state versus multistate health plans). Two sets of regression models are estimated. The dependent variables in the regressions are five measures of performance related to plan trustworthiness: two related to deceptive practices and three to dimensions of quality that are largely hidden from enrollees. The first set (baseline) models relate plan ownership to trustworthy practices, controlling for other characteristics of the plan, the marketplace for health insurance, and the physician respondents. The second (interactive) set of models examines how the magnitude of ownership-related differences in trustworthiness varies with the market share of nonprofit plans in each community.

DATA COLLECTION

The 1998 SMS was fielded between April and September of 1998 by Westat Inc. The average time required for a completed interview was approximately 30 minutes. The overall response rate was 52.2 percent.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Compared with more local nonprofit plans, for-profit plans affiliated with multistate corporations are consistently reported by their affiliated physicians to engage in practices associated with reduced trustworthiness. Nonprofit plans affiliated with multistate corporations have more physician-reported practices associated with trustworthiness than do for-profit corporate plans on four of five outcomes, but appear less trustworthy than locally controlled nonprofits on two of the five measures. The magnitude of these ownership-related differences declines as the market share of nonprofit plans rises: for two of the five measures, ownership-related differences in practices related to trustworthiness are entirely eliminated when the nonprofits enroll more than 30 percent of the local market.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of for-profit ownership and multistate corporate control appears to consistently and substantially reduce physician-reported measures related to the trustworthiness of health plans. Because this is the fastest growing form of managed care, these results raise concerns about further erosion of trust in American health care. Preserving a substantial market niche for nonprofit plans appears to reduce this erosion and should be considered by policymakers as a strategy for restoring trust in the health care system.