CAHPS Research Articles

Vertical Integration and Care Experiences Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in integrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated plans share unique features that may differ from newer integrated MA plans. It is unclear whether integrated and legacy-integrated MA plans are associated with a better beneficiary care experience compared with non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. To assess whether enrollment in integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated MA plans is associated with better beneficiary care experiences. This cross-sectional study included MA beneficiaries who responded to Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys conducted annually between 2015 and 2019. Data analysis was performed between October 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024. Medicare Advantage plan integration status, categorized as integrated, legacy-integrated, non-legacy-integrated, and nonintegrated. The CAHPS surveys assessed 9 care experience measures. To assess differences in care experience measures, mixed linear regression analyses were performed, adjusting for demographic characteristics, plan random effects, and state fixed effects. The sample consisted of 857 695 respondents. Their mean (SD) age was 72.6 (10.3) years, and 58.1% were women. A total of 12.7% of respondents were Black, 10.7% were Hispanic, and 71.0% were White. Compared with respondents in nonintegrated MA plans, respondents in integrated MA plans were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [10.3] vs 72.2 [10.3] years, respectively) and were less likely to be Black (13.1% vs 11.2%, respectively), female (58.4% vs 57.2%, respectively), and partially dual eligible (8.7% vs 6.2%, respectively). Integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings only of customer service (1.6 points [95% CI, 1.1-2.1]) and health plan (1.0 points [95% CI, 0.6-1.5]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with meaningfully better mean ratings of drug plan (3.7 points [95% CI, 2.4-5.0]), health plan (3.1 points [95% CI, 1.7-4.5]), customer service (2.8 points [95% CI, 1.3-4.4]), getting appointments and care quickly (2.6 points [95% CI, 1.2-4.0]), health care quality (1.9 points [95% CI, 1.0-2.7]), physicians who communicate well (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.8]), and care coordination (1.1 points [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]) compared with nonintegrated MA plans. In this study, integrated MA plans were not associated with better beneficiary care experiences compared with nonintegrated MA plans. Legacy-integrated MA plans were associated with higher ratings on all care experience measures compared with both non-legacy-integrated and nonintegrated MA plans. Monitoring of integrated MA plans is needed to assess whether they are adding meaningful value to MA beneficiaries and to determine their effects on the health care system.

The relationship between patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer.

248 Background: Measures of patient experience (PEX) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are used by health systems across the US to improve care delivery and quality of life, respectively. Despite their widespread use, little is known regarding the relationship between these two types of patient-generated data. From 2018 to 2023, we conducted a pragmatic type-II hybrid effectiveness/implementation study of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded symptom management program (eSyM) across six diverse cancer centers. This project focused on patients who started chemotherapy (CHEMO) or had surgery (SURG) for a suspected or confirmed gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or thoracic malignancy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults who were eligible for either the control or intervention arm of the eSyM study to determine if patients who reported having an inferior care-team experience were more likely to report having worse symptoms. Participants completed a one-time survey via REDCap that included elements from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Analyses determined the extent to which PEX measures were associated with PRO measures by evaluating differences in mean PROMIS scores for those who rated their PEX highly vs. not highly. Results: In total, 1419 respondents reported having cancer for which they received care at a participating center: median age 66, 63% female, 5% black, 13% disabled, 66% married/partnered, 23% high school or less education, 22% somewhat-extreme difficulty paying bills. For both CHEMO and SURG patients, 82% rated their overall cancer care-team experience highly (top box score of 9-10). Compared to patients who did not rate their care-team experience highly, those who did reported better scores for depression, fatigue, anxiety, pain interference, physical function, and self-efficacy (Table). PROMIS values differed for other CAHPS measures too. Conclusions: Among patients receiving routine cancer care, there was a significant association between PEX and multiple PROs. Further investigation of the nature and strength of the association between PEX and PRO measures is warranted. If confirmed, this association could lead to the development of interventions that impact both patient satisfaction and quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT03850912 . Mean difference in PROMIS scores for patients who rated their care-team experience highly versus not highly (P from two-sample T-test). CHEMO (N=889) SURG (N=530) Mean Diff 95%CI P value Mean Diff 95%CI P value Depression -2.7 -4.3, -1.1 0.001 -3.3 -5.3, -1.4 <0.001 Anxiety -3.7 -5.4, -1.9 <0.001 -3.6 -5.7, -1.5 <0.001 Fatigue -2.3 -4.0, -0.5 0.011 -4.5 -6.8, -2.2 <0.001 Pain interference -3.6 -5.3, -1.9 <0.001 -4.7 -6.7, -2.7 <0.001 Physical function 1.6 0.1, 3.1 0.042 3.5 1.4, 5.6 0.001 Self-efficacy 3.9 2.6, 5.2 <0.001 6.4 4.6, 8.1 <0.001

Measuring Access to Mental Health Services Among Primary Care Patients.

The lifetime risk of mental health disorders is almost 50% and, in any year, about 25% of the population have a psychiatric disorder. Many of those people are cared for in primary care settings. Measure access to mental health services, such as getting counselling or prescription mental health medications, using new patient survey questions that can be added to Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. Surveys were conducted with a stratified probability sample of patients receiving primary care services in a single state in 2018-2019. Medicaid and privately insured patients were surveyed by mail or telephone, respectively. Approximately 14% of sampled patients responded to a survey. More than 10% of privately insured respondents and about 20% of Medicaid respondents got or tried to get appointments for mental health care. About 15% of privately insured respondents and 11% of Medicaid respondents reported problems getting appointments with counselors. Only 8%-9% of respondents seeking mental health medicines reported problems getting appointments for prescriptions. A composite measure combining access to counselors and prescribers of mental health medicines evidenced adequate internal consistency reliability. Group level reliability estimates were low. Many respondents got or tried to get mental health services and a substantial number reported problems getting appointments or getting mental health prescriptions. The tested questions can be combined into an Access to Mental Health Care measure, which can be included in patient experience surveys for ambulatory care to monitor access to behavioral health care.

No Association Between Medicare Advantage Providers' Network Restrictiveness and Star Rating Between 2013 and 2017: An Observational Study.

Medicare beneficiaries are increasingly enrolling in Medicare Advantage (MA), which employs a wide range of practices around restriction of the networks of providers that beneficiaries visit. Though Medicare beneficiaries highly value provider choice, it is unknown whether the MA contract quality metrics which beneficiaries use to inform their contract selection capture the restrictiveness of contracts' provider networks. We evaluated whether there are meaningful associations between provider network restrictiveness (across primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology providers) and contracts' overall star quality rating, as well as between network restrictiveness and contracts' performance on access to care measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Medicare Advantage contracts with health maintenance organization (HMO), local preferred provider organization (PPO), and point of service (POS) plans with available data. A cross-sectional analysis using multivariable linear regressions to assess the relationship between provider network restrictiveness and contract quality scores in 2013 through 2017. Statistical significance in the relationship between network restrictiveness and contract performance on quality measures. Across all study years, we included 562 unique contracts and 2801 contract-years. We find no evidence of consistent relationships between MA physician network restrictiveness and contract star rating. For primary care, psychiatry, and endocrinology, respectively, a 10 percentage point increase in restrictiveness was associated with a 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.01 to 0.04), 0.0008 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), and -0.01 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.001) difference in star rating (p-value > 0.05 for all). Similarly, we find no evidence of consistent relationships between network restrictiveness and access to care measures. Our findings suggest that existing MA contract quality measures are not useful for indicating differences in network restrictiveness. Given the importance of provider choice to beneficiaries, more specific metrics may be needed to facilitate informed decisions about MA coverage.

Patient Surveys Are Used Most Often to Assess Health Care Innovations, Rigorous Methods Are Less Common.

The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Innovations Exchange (IE) was developed to collect and report on innovative approaches to improving health care. The team reviewed 348 IE innovations including patient-reported satisfaction or experience measures. Innovations most often measured overall rating of care (61% of innovations), followed by access (52%) and provider-patient communication (12%). More than half used patient satisfaction surveys (n = 187) rather than patient experience surveys (n = 64). Innovations using patient experience surveys more often measured specific aspects of patient care, for example, access, versus a general overall rating of care. Most innovations using patient experience surveys administered nonvalidated, homegrown surveys, with few using the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality-endorsed, psychometrically-tested CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey. The most common study design was postimplementation-only (65%), highlighting that methodological rigor used to assess patient-centeredness in the IE is low. Broad use of patient experience surveys and more rigorous evaluation study designs has increased some over time but is still lacking.

Pilot study of early integration of interventional pain management for patients with chronic cancer pain.

e24080 Background: Pain is a common, distressing, and costly complication of cancer. Treatment guidelines recommend consideration of interventional pain procedures in addition to pharmacotherapy, yet they are underutilized and often only considered for refractory pain despite high-dose opioids. We examined the feasibility of early integration of interventional pain management among ambulatory patients with chronic cancer pain. Methods: This single arm pilot feasibility study recruited patients from outpatient clinics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors, persistent pain secondary to cancer/cancer treatment, average pain rating of 4 or higher (0-10 scale), and prognosis > 6 months. Patients could not be taking more than 200 oral morphine equivalents per day. Patients were systematically referred to an interventional pain specialist for consideration of pain procedures, with monthly visits for 4 months. Measures of feasibility included the proportion of patients seen by the pain specialist within 4 weeks, and the proportion undergoing pain procedures. Patients completed surveys at baseline, 2 and 4 months; using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), patients rated their satisfaction with pain clinic (range 0-10), and how often the pain doctor treated them with courtesy and respect, listened carefully, and explained things in a way they could understand (range 1-4, higher scores better). Among those undergoing procedures, patients indicated the percent pain relief they had from the procedure. Results: Between May 2022 and October 2023, 30 patients were enrolled (4 remain on study); mean age, 59.5, 50% male, with a variety of solid tumors; baseline “average pain” and “worst pain” scores were 4.3( SD,1.2) and 6.5( SD,1.6). All but one patient (96.7%) was seen in the pain clinic within four weeks; 57% (n = 17) received one or more pain procedure, with 20% (n = 6) undergoing repeat procedures. The most common procedures were neural blockade (8), celiac plexus neurolysis (n = 4), trigger point injection (n = 3), and epidural steroid injection (n = 3). Among patients receiving a procedure, the median percentage relief was 65% (IQR:30,80). Patients rated the quality of care from the pain clinic highly, with a mean score of 8.6( SD,1.6); and were satisfied with their pain physicians with a mean rating of 3.8( SD,0.4) on treating with respect, 3.7( SD,0.6) for listening, and 3.6( SD,0.6) for explaining. Conclusions: In this study of patients with cancer pain, systematic referral to interventional pain management specialists was feasible, and led to most patients receiving a pain procedure. Patients were satisfied with their pain care and reported meaningful relief of symptoms. Further study is needed to examine whether early integration of interventional pain management improves pain control. Clinical trial information: NCT05366413 .

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

BackgroundWhile 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. ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics of MA enrollees at higher mortality risk using patient survey data. Research DesignRetrospective cohort. SubjectsMA enrollees completing the 2019 MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey. MeasuresLinked 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. ResultsThe 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 %. ConclusionsRelatively 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.

Hospice providers serving assisted living residents: Association of higher volume with lower quality.

Assisted living (AL) community caregivers are known to report lower quality of hospice care. However, little is known about hospice providers serving AL residents and factors that may contribute to, and explain, differences in quality. We examined the association between hospice providers' AL patient-day volume and their quality ratings based on Hospice Item Set (HIS) and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Surveys. This cross-sectional study employed information from the Medicare Compare website and Medicare claims data. Medicare-eligible AL residents were identified using previously validated methods and merged with hospice claims. Linear probability models adjusting for county fixed effects were used to examine the association between hospice provider AL volume, measured as the share of annual hospice patient days from AL residents, and quality measures obtained from HIS and CAHPS. Models controlled for hospice providers' profit status and daily patient census. Higher AL-volume hospice providers were 7 percentage points more likely to have caregivers reporting lower median scores on domains of pain assessment, dyspnea treatment, and emotional support. Their caregivers also reported lower scores in team communications and training family to provide care. Higher AL-volume hospice providers also were 5 percentage points less likely to get higher aggregated scores from all CAHPS domains and 7 percentage points less likely to have higher HIS composite scores. Hospice providers serving higher volumes of AL patient days had lower quality scores. In order to identify targeted opportunities for quality improvement, research is needed to understand why lower quality providers are concentrated in the AL market.

Assessing the accuracy of race-and-ethnicity data in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set.

Limitations in the quality of race-and-ethnicity information in Medicare's data systems constrain efforts to assess disparities in care among older Americans. Using demographic information from standardized patient assessments may be an efficient way to enhance the accuracy and completeness of race-and-ethnicity information in Medicare's data systems, but it is critical to first establish the accuracy of these data as they may be prone to inaccurate observer-reported or third-party-based information. This study evaluates the accuracy of patient-level race-and-ethnicity information included in the Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) submitted by home health agencies. We compared 2017-2022 OASIS-D race-and-ethnicity data to gold-standard self-reported information from the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems® survey in a matched sample of 304,804 people with Medicare coverage. We also compared OASIS data to indirect estimates of race-and-ethnicity generated using the Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname and Geocoding (MBISG) 2.1.1 method and to existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative records. Compared with existing CMS administrative data, OASIS data are far more accurate for Hispanic, Asian American and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White race-and-ethnicity; slightly less accurate for American Indian or Alaska Native race-and-ethnicity; and similarly accurate for Black race-and-ethnicity. However, MBISG 2.1.1 accuracy exceeds that of both OASIS and CMS administrative data for every racial-and-ethnic category. Patterns of inconsistent reporting of racial-and-ethnic information among people for whom there were multiple observations in the OASIS and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) datasets suggest that some of the inaccuracies in OASIS data may result from observation-based reporting that lessens correspondence with self-reported data. When health record data on race-and-ethnicity includes observer-reported information, it can be less accurate than both true self-report and a high-performing imputation approach. Efforts are needed to encourage collection of true self-reported data and explicit record-level data on the source of race-and-ethnicity information.

Abstract P301: Nativity Explains Disparities in Provider Experience Scores Among Asian and Pacific Islander Patients With and Without Cardiovascular Disease

Introduction: Research has shown that Asian patients rate their patient-provider experience lower than Non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. Few studies have examined whether experience scores differ by cardiovascular disease presence and disaggregated Asian race subgroups. Hypotheses: 1) NHW patients will have the highest healthcare experience scores, followed by multiracial Asian and Pacific Islander (API) patients, and then single race API patients; 2) patients with CVD will have lower scores than patients without CVD; and 3) longer duration in the U.S. will be associated with higher scores. Methods: We examined 5,234 participants, aged 40+ surveyed in two health systems in Hawai'i and California. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey quantified patient experience (range: 5-20). We dichotomized CAHPS to compare patients who scored low (&lt; 18) to high (18+). For immigrants, length of residence determined nativity. Multivariable logistic regression compared the association of race and low CAHPS, adjusting for age, sex, ethnic affiliation strength, education, nativity, and CVD diagnosis. Results: There were no significant differences in CAHPS score by CVD (Table). Chinese and Filipino patients had significantly higher odds of low CAHPS than NHW patients with adjustment for age and sex. These differences were fully attenuated when adjusting for nativity. Compared to U.S.-born people, immigrants who have lived in the U.S. between 0-19 years were more likely to have low CAHPS (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.47, 3.10). Even immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 20+ years had increased odds of low CAHPS (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.16, 1.81). Conclusion: Although most people have positive provider experiences, differences remain by race. Nativity and duration in the U.S. explained racial variations in CAHPS among API individuals in our study. Research should continue disaggregating racial data by nativity status to improve the quality of care and health outcomes for immigrant populations.

Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. Since the 2007 release of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey, no systematic review of factors associated with CG-CAHPS scores has been reported. We reviewed 52 peer-reviewed English language articles published in the United States using CG-CAHPS data. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified several interventions (eg, adding a care coordinator focused on chronic care management) associated with improved overall provider rating and 2 interventions (eg, peer shadow coaching) that improved provider communication scores. Studies evaluating the implementation of patient-centered medical homes or patient-reported outcomes found mixed results. We identified site-level factors (eg, better team communication) and provider-level factors (eg, physician empathy) associated with better patient experience. In contrast, patient-level factors (eg, medication adherence) found mixed associations with patient experience. Policymakers, clinicians, and healthcare leaders can leverage this evidence for quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.

Racial and ethnic disparities in self-reported general and mental health status among colorectal cancer survivors: impact of sociodemographic factors and implications for mortality—a SEER-CAHPS study

PurposePatient-reported outcomes are recognized as strong predictors of cancer prognosis. This study examines racial and ethnic differences in self-reported general health status (GHS) and mental health status (MHS) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsA retrospective analysis of Medicare beneficiaries between 1998 and 2011 with non-distant CRC who underwent curative resection and completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey within 6–36 months of CRC diagnosis. Analysis included a stepwise logistic regression to examine the relationship between race and ethnicity and fair or poor health status, and a proportional hazards model to determine the mortality risk associated with fair or poor health status.ResultsOf 1867 patients, Non-Hispanic Black (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06–2.28) and Hispanic (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04–2.11) patients had higher unadjusted odds for fair or poor GHS compared to Non-Hispanic White patients, also Hispanic patients had higher unadjusted odds for fair or poor MHS (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.23–3.01). These relationships persisted after adjusting for clinical factors but were attenuated after subsequently adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Compared to those reporting good to excellent health status, patients reporting fair or poor GHS or MHS had an increased mortality risk (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31–1.76 and OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34–1.99, respectively).ConclusionRacial and ethnic differences in GHS and MHS reported after CRC diagnosis are mainly driven by sociodemographic factors and reflect a higher risk of mortality. Identifying unmet biopsychosocial needs is necessary to promote equitable care.

EXAMINING VETERANS’ CHOICES OF HIGH-QUALITY MEDICARE SKILLED HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES

Abstract Medicare-certified skilled home health helps Veterans restore function post-hospitalization. Our objective was to understand the quality of VA contracted home health agencies (HHAs) available to Veterans (i.e., had at least 1 VA-paid episode of care in the 12 months) relative to the local market. For comparison, about one-third (30.4%) of traditional Medicare beneficiaries received care from high-quality HHAs (4- or 5-stars on quality of care) in 2015 (Schwartz et al., 2019). We used the Home Health CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) 2016-2019 quarterly patient experience of care overall ratings (possible values: 1-5) to define a high-quality agency as those with 4- or 5-star ratings. We matched the quarterly ratings with the discharge date from a VA Medical Center to create HHA choice sets per eligible Veteran discharge. A choice set contains all contracted and non-contracted HHAs that serve a Veteran’s Zip Code. Among HHAs proximal to Veterans’ homes across all years (N= 10,507 unique HHAs), 54.8% were high-quality (n=12,449 HHA-years), 30.1% were 3-star quality (n=6,835 HHA-years), and 15.1% were low-quality (1- or 2- stars) (n=3,444 HHA-years). Among discharges, 53.2% (n=28,081) of the discharges went to high-quality HHAs and 15.7% (n=8,294) went to low-quality HHAs. Veterans tended to live in areas with access to high-quality home health care, and most discharges mapped to high-quality HHAs. However, there is room to improve Veterans’ access to high-quality skilled home health and more to understand about VA contracting practices and the HHA selection process.

Impact of Secure Messaging Telehealth Service on the Quality of Health Care

Importance: Secure messaging is the only rapidly growing virtual care in the telehealth ecosystem; it is a cost-effective way to get medical advice and an alternative to an in-person, video, or telephone visit. Secure messaging has been shown to positively affect patients manage chronic diseases, improve health awareness and literacy, and improve communication and care coordination. However, providers have seen a 200% increase in secure messages in the past few years with some that are associated with medical visit avoidance and providers’ burnout. Such paradoxical tension raises questions about the value of secure messages and whether it impacts the quality of health care outcomes.&#x0D; Objective: Conduct an empirical assessment and evaluate the extent to which and for whom secure messages improve the quality of health care.&#x0D; Methods: Electronic health records of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with an active patient portal account who visited the Academic Medical Center between 2015-2020 were included in the analysis. Patients must have also initiated a secure message, made a follow-up in-person appointment, and completed the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) patient satisfaction survey.&#x0D; Results: The final regression analysis included 1,332 patients with no missing data. The results reveal a negative relationship between patients who discuss their secure messages during their encounters and patient satisfaction even after controlling for patient-specific (age, gender, insurance), provider-specific (responsiveness), and medical conditions (average blood sugar, mean arterial pressure). The results also show a stronger negative effect for the underrepresented minorities (Blacks and Hispanics).&#x0D; Discussion: The negative relationship between secure message exchanges and patient satisfaction may stem from different mental models between patients and providers as stocks of prior knowledge. Providers with their subject matter expertise have mental models that are incongruent with patients’ general health knowledge suggesting that the patients may struggle to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it. On the other hand, effective communication is fundamental to patient satisfaction, and providers may be challenged to instill greater understanding during their average 18-minute encounters. The proliferation of digital divide research in health care indicates that Blacks and Hispanics are at a disadvantage; therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggests that the rate of health literacy differs possibly creating greater uncertainty and ambiguity. More research is needed that probes into the role and value of secure messaging as health care providers begin to charge patients for this telehealth service.

Association between Patient Experience Scores and Low Utilization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment in the United States: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Analysis (SEER-CAHPS)

PurposeTo study the experiences of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) contributing to treatment discrepancy in the United States. Materials and MethodsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data from National Cancer Institute (NCI), Medicare (2002–2015) beneficiaries with HCC who completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey were included. Six CAHPS items (3 global scores: global care rating [GCR], primary doctor rating [PDR], and specialist rating [SR]; 3 composite scores: getting needed care [GNC], getting care quickly [GCQ], and doctor communication [DC]) assessed patient experience. Covariates assessed between treated and nontreated groups included patient, disease, hospital, and CAHPS items. ResultsAmong 548 patients with HCC, 211 (39%) received treatment and 337 (61%) did not receive treatment. Forty-two percent (GCR), 29% (PDR), 30% (SR), 36% (GNC), 78% (GCQ), and 35% (DC) of patients reported less-than-excellent experiences on the respective CAHPS items. Chronic liver disease (CLD) was present in 52% and liver decompensation (LD) in 60%. A minority of the hospitals were NCI-designated cancer centers (47%), transplant centers (27%), and referral centers (9%). On univariable analysis, patients with at least a high school degree (odds ratio [OR], 1.9), admittance to a ≥400-bed hospital (OR, 2.7), CLD (OR, 3.0), or LD (OR, 1.7) were more likely to receive treatment, whereas older patients (≥75 years) (OR, 0.5) were less likely to receive treatment. On multivariable, patients with CLD (OR, 6.8) and an excellent experience in GNC with a specialist (OR, 10.6) were more likely to receive treatment. ConclusionsHCC treatment discrepancy may be associated with patient-related factors, such as lack of specialist care (GNC), and disease-related factors, such as absence of underlying CLD.

Identifying Patient Perceptions of Inequality in Public Health Care Services: Evidence From a Single Indian Administrative District.

Assessment of patient experiences is an essential step to revamp patient-centered care and identify systemic effectiveness as part of universal health coverage. This paper analyzes the variation of health care at different levels of the public health care system in India by measuring patients' experience with the care they have received in the Alipurduar district of India. From May 2021 to April 2022, stratified sampling technique was applied to collect primary data from 450 patients having different health problems from different levels of the public health care system. In addition, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results were used to evaluate patient experience, with the reliability of questions measured by Cronbach's alpha. Collected data were categorized with the help of exploratory factor analysis; after which, analysis of variance and post-hoc tests were applied to understand specific variations in patient experiences. This study identified that the services delivered in the health centers were not suitable (6.160 out of 10) to fulfill the needs of the patients. Among the three domains of health care services - namely, proficiency, tangibility, and information - the experience of patients significantly varied (P<0.001) when comparing primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of the public health care system. Patients receiving services from the centers under the tertiary level have expressed lesser satisfaction than those patients who have received care at primary or secondary levels because of excessive patient load, inadequate manpower, and other infrastructure deficits at the tertiary level.

Organizational Health Literacy and Health Among New York State Medicaid Members.

The definition of health literacy has recently expanded beyond the idea of individual skills to include the system and environment the individual interacts with to receive care, known as organizational health literacy (OHL). However, neither the prevalence of OHL nor the impact of OHL on individuals' perceptions of their health and healthcare have been examined in New York's Medicaid managed care population. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of organizational health literacy in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) program. A brief measure to assess organizational health literacy was developed from responses to two questions in the 2018 NYS Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Generalized Estimating Equation models were developed to analyze the association between organizational health literacy and three aspects of perceptions of health and health care, controlling for demographic differences and clustering effects from health insurance plans. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Among 3,598 members included in the study, 20% of the MMC members reported inadequate organizational health literacy. These members were more likely to be older, less educated, from racial and ethnic minority groups, and less fluent with English. They are more likely to have poorer self-reported health (odds ratio [OR] 1.49), lower perceived access to health care (OR 6.97), and lower satisfaction with their health care (OR 6.49) than members who did not report inadequate organizational health literacy. Our results suggest that a proportion of the NYS MMC population faces inadequate organizational health literacy, which can present a barrier to health care access and result in patients having a significantly poorer health care experience. Using an existing data source that is part of existing data collection allows for routine assessment of organizational health literacy, which can help inform health plans about areas for potential improvement. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023;7(3):e154-e164.].

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Caregiver Survey to Assess Family-Centered Care in the Emergency Department.

To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a family caregiver-reported survey that assesses family-centeredness of care in the context of pediatric emergency department (ED) encounters. We created a caregiver-reported scale, incorporated content expert feedback, and iteratively revised it based on cognitive interviews with caregivers. We then field tested the scale in a survey with caregivers. We dichotomized items using top-box scoring and obtained a summary score per respondent. Using a sample of 191 caregivers recruited from 9 EDs, we analyzed internal consistency reliability, dimensionality via item response theory modeling, and convergent validity with the ED Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Feedback from the 9 experts led us to remove 4 items. We conducted 16 cognitive interviews and revised the survey in 4 rounds. An 11-item survey was field tested. Mean (standard deviation) respondent 11-item summary score was 77.2 (26.6). We removed 2 items given inconsistent response patterns, poor variability, and poor internal consistency, which increased coefficient alpha from 0.85 to 0.88 for the final scale. A multidimensional model fit the data best, but factor scores correlated strongly with summary scores, suggesting the latter are sufficient for quality improvement and future research. Regarding convergent validity, adjusted partial correlation between our scale's 9-item summary score and the ED CAHPS summary score was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.81). Psychometric analyses demonstrated strong item performance, reliability, and convergent validity for the 9-item scale. This survey can be used to assess family-centered care in the ED for research and quality improvement purposes.

Associations Between Patient-Reported Experiences with Opioid Use Disorder Treatment and Unmet Treatment Needs and Discontinuation Among Virginia Medicaid Members.

Many payers, including Medicaid, the largest payer of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, are pursuing treatment-related quality improvement initiatives. Yet, how patient-reported experiences with OUD treatment relate to patient-centered outcomes remains poorly understood. To examine associations between Medicaid members' OUD treatment experiences, outpatient treatment settings, demographic and social factors, and members' self-report of unmet needs during treatment and treatment discontinuation. A sample of Virginia Medicaid members aged 21 years or older with OUD diagnoses who received outpatient OUD treatment completed a mail survey between January 2020 and August 2021 (n = 1042, weighted n = 9244). A treatment experience index was constructed from responses to four items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) relating to feelings of involvement, safety, and respect and having treatment explained in an understandable way; two additional CAHPS items: "given options for treatment" and "able to refuse treatment" were also assessed. Weighted imputed logistic regressions tested adjusted associations between members' treatment experiences, demographic and social factors, and two outcomes capturing unmet needs during treatment and treatment discontinuation. More positive scores on the treatment experiences index were associated with lower adjusted odds of reporting unmet needs during treatment (aOR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.66) and discontinuation (aOR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.79). Respondents with serious psychological distress had higher odds of reporting unmet needs during treatment (aOR: 1.69 95% CI: 1.14-2.51) and discontinuation (aOR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.21-2.82), as did individuals with housing insecurity (unmet needs: (aOR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.11-2.44); treatment discontinuation: (aOR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.04-2.36)). Using a first-of-its-kind survey of Medicaid members with OUD, we found that members who had more positive treatment experiences were less likely to report unmet treatment needs and discontinue treatment. Care approaches focused on improving patient experience are critical to delivering effective, high-quality OUD treatment.

Healthcare Experiences Are Associated with Colorectal Cancer Mortality but only for Specific Racial Groups: a SEER-CAHPS Study

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to determine whether racial/ethnic disparities exist in patient-reported experiences with care after colorectal cancer diagnosis and whether they are associated with mortality.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of colorectal cancer patients diagnosed from 1997 to 2011, ≥ 65 years, and completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey at least 6 months after a cancer diagnosis. We leverage the National Cancer Institute’s SEER-CAHPS dataset of Medicare beneficiaries. CAHPS survey responses were used to generate four composite measures of patient experiences with 1) getting needed care, 2) getting needed prescription drugs, 3) getting care quickly, and 4) physician communication. We used multivariable linear regression models to examine racial differences in patient experiences with aspects of their care and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to identify the risk of mortality associated with each composite score by racial group.ResultsOf the 5135 patients, 76.86% were non-Hispanic White, 7.58% non-Hispanic Black, 8.30% Hispanic, and 7.26% non-Hispanic Asian. Overall, patients reported the highest scores for composite measures regarding “getting all needed prescriptions” and the lowest score for “getting care quickly.” In our adjusted models, we found that Hispanics, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian patients reported significantly lower scores for getting needed prescription drugs (B = − 4.34, B = − 4.32, B = − 5.66; all p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Moreover, non-Hispanic Black patients also reported lower scores for getting care quickly (B = − 3.44, p < 0.05). We only found one statistically significant association between composite scores of patient experience and mortality. For non-Hispanic Black patients, a 3-unit increase in getting needed care was associated with 0.97 times the hazard of mortality (p = 0.003).ConclusionOur research underscores that CAHPS patient experiences with care are an important patient-centered quality-of-care metric that may be associated with cancer outcomes and that there may be differences in these relationships by race and ethnicity. Thus, highlighting how patients’ perceptions of their healthcare experiences can contribute to disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes.