Profiles of medicare : 30th anniversary /

Cover title.

Medicare & you.

Description based on: 2000.

Public use files catalog as of July 1, 1997 : Medicare/Medicaid data files /

Accompanied by supplement issued in 1998.

Legislative history of professional standards review organization : provisions of the Social Security Act Amendments : legislature through October 25, 1977.

Cover title.

Medicare y usted, 1999 : plan original de Medicare y otros planes de salud de Medicare.

Issued also in English : Medicare & you.

Public use files catalog, Medicare/Medicaid data files, October 1, 1999 /

"The Enterprise Databases Group has the responsibility for planning and development of the PUFs catalog under Betty Jackson, Director and Joseph F. Daniloski, Deputy Director. Karen Beebe ... made major contributions ... Key contributors to the content and format included Laquetta McNeal ... [et al.]."

End-stage renal disease annual report to Congress.

No more published?

Public use files catalog as of July 1, 1997 : Medicare/Medicaid data files.

Cover title.

Medicare hospital information.

Issued in numerous parts identified by no. and geographic area (e.g.: v. 46, Texas. Part 1) and including as its final no. a technical suppl. not additionally identified.

Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: Primary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician). RESULTS: NPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

Evaluation of financial incentives as a quality improvement strategy in the public hospital context : clinician attitudes, design variables, and economic costs

In 2008, a three-year pilot ‘pay for performance’ (P4P) program, known as ‘Clinical Practice Improvement Payment’ (CPIP) was introduced into Queensland Health (QHealth). QHealth is a large public health sector provider of acute, community, and public health services in Queensland, Australia. The organisation has recently embarked on a significant reform agenda including a review of existing funding arrangements (Duckett et al., 2008). Partly in response to this reform agenda, a casemix funding model has been implemented to reconnect health care funding with outcomes. CPIP was conceptualised as a performance-based scheme that rewarded quality with financial incentives. This is the first time such a scheme has been implemented into the public health sector in Australia with a focus on rewarding quality, and it is unique in that it has a large state-wide focus and includes 15 Districts. CPIP initially targeted five acute and community clinical areas including Mental Health, Discharge Medication, Emergency Department, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Stroke. The CPIP scheme was designed around key concepts including the identification of clinical indicators that met the set criteria of: high disease burden, a well defined single diagnostic group or intervention, significant variations in clinical outcomes and/or practices, a good evidence, and clinician control and support (Ward, Daniels, Walker & Duckett, 2007). This evaluative research targeted Phase One of implementation of the CPIP scheme from January 2008 to March 2009. A formative evaluation utilising a mixed methodology and complementarity analysis was undertaken. The research involved three research questions and aimed to determine the knowledge, understanding, and attitudes of clinicians; identify improvements to the design, administration, and monitoring of CPIP; and determine the financial and economic costs of the scheme. Three key studies were undertaken to ascertain responses to the key research questions. Firstly, a survey of clinicians was undertaken to examine levels of knowledge and understanding and their attitudes to the scheme. Secondly, the study sought to apply Statistical Process Control (SPC) to the process indicators to assess if this enhanced the scheme and a third study examined a simple economic cost analysis. The CPIP Survey of clinicians elicited 192 clinician respondents. Over 70% of these respondents were supportive of the continuation of the CPIP scheme. This finding was also supported by the results of a quantitative altitude survey that identified positive attitudes in 6 of the 7 domains-including impact, awareness and understanding and clinical relevance, all being scored positive across the combined respondent group. SPC as a trending tool may play an important role in the early identification of indicator weakness for the CPIP scheme. This evaluative research study supports a previously identified need in the literature for a phased introduction of Pay for Performance (P4P) type programs. It further highlights the value of undertaking a formal risk assessment of clinician, management, and systemic levels of literacy and competency with measurement and monitoring of quality prior to a phased implementation. This phasing can then be guided by a P4P Design Variable Matrix which provides a selection of program design options such as indicator target and payment mechanisms. It became evident that a clear process is required to standardise how clinical indicators evolve over time and direct movement towards more rigorous ‘pay for performance’ targets and the development of an optimal funding model. Use of this matrix will enable the scheme to mature and build the literacy and competency of clinicians and the organisation as implementation progresses. Furthermore, the research identified that CPIP created a spotlight on clinical indicators and incentive payments of over five million from a potential ten million was secured across the five clinical areas in the first 15 months of the scheme. This indicates that quality was rewarded in the new QHealth funding model, and despite issues being identified with the payment mechanism, funding was distributed. The economic model used identified a relative low cost of reporting (under $8,000) as opposed to funds secured of over $300,000 for mental health as an example. Movement to a full cost effectiveness study of CPIP is supported. Overall the introduction of the CPIP scheme into QHealth has been a positive and effective strategy for engaging clinicians in quality and has been the catalyst for the identification and monitoring of valuable clinical process indicators. This research has highlighted that clinicians are supportive of the scheme in general; however, there are some significant risks that include the functioning of the CPIP payment mechanism. Given clinician support for the use of a pay–for-performance methodology in QHealth, the CPIP scheme has the potential to be a powerful addition to a multi-faceted suite of quality improvement initiatives within QHealth.

When financial incentives do more good than harm : a checklist

Financial incentives can sometimes improve the quality of clinical practice, but they may also be an expensive distraction. Paul Glasziou and colleagues have devised a checklist to help prevent their premature or inappropriate implementation

Improved rural health through a collaborative model of care – qualitative findings

INTRODUCTION Health disparity between urban and rural regions in Australia is well-documented. In the Wheatbelt catchments of Western Australia there is higher incidence and rate of avoidable hospitalisation for chronic diseases. Structured care approach to chronic illnesses is not new but the focus has been on single disease state. A recent ARC Discovery Project on general practice nurse-led chronic disease management of diabetes, hypertension and stable ischaemic heart disease reported improved communication and better medical administration.[1] In our study we investigated the sustainability of such a multi-morbidities general practice –led collaborative model of care in rural Australia. METHODS A QUAN(qual) design was utilised. Eight pairs of rural general practices were matched. Inclusion criteria used were >18 years and capable of giving informed consent, at least one identified risk factor or diagnosed with chronic conditions. Patients were excluded if deemed medically unsuitable. A comprehensive care plan was formulated by the respective general practice nurse in consultation with the treating General Practitioner (GP) and patient based on the individual’s readiness to change, and was informed by available local resource. A case management approach was utilised. Shediaz-Rizkallah and Lee’s conceptual framework on sustainability informed our evaluation.[2] Our primary outcome on measures of sustainability was reduction in avoidable hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were patients and practitioners acceptance and satisfaction, and changes to pre-determined interim clinical and process outcomes. RESULTS The qualitative interviews highlighted the community preference for a ‘sustainable’ local hospital in addition to general practice. Costs, ease of access, low prioritisation of self chronic care, workforce turnover and perception of losing another local resource if underutilised influenced the respondents’ decision to present at local hospital for avoidable chronic diseases regardless. CONCLUSIONS Despite the pragmatic nature of rural general practice in Australia, the sustainability of chronic multi-morbidities management in general practice require efficient integration of primary-secondary health care and consideration of other social determinants of health. What this study adds: What is already known on this subject: Structured approach to chronic disease management is not new and has been shown to be effective for reducing hospitalisation. However, the focus has been on single disease state. What does this study add: Sustainability of collaborative model of multi-morbidities care require better primary-secondary integration and consideration of social determinants of health.

Hospital care in Iran : an examination of national health system performance

This study examines hospital care system performance in Iran. We first briefly review hospital care delivery system in Iran. Then, the hospital care system in Iran has been investigated from financial, utilization, and quality perspectives. In particular, we examined the extent to which health care system in Iran protects people from the financial consequence of health care expenses and whether inpatient care distributed according to need. We also empirically analyzed the quality of hospital care in Iran using patient satisfaction information collected in a national health service survey. The Iranian health care system consists of unequal access to hospital care; mismatch between the distribution of services and inpatients' need; and high probability of financial catastrophe due to out-of-pocket payments for inpatient services. Our analysis indicates that the quality of hospital care among Iranian provinces favors patients residing in provinces with high numbers of hospital beds per capita such as Esfahan and Yazd. Patients living in provinces with low levels of accessibility to hospital care (e.g. Gilan, Kermanshah, Hamadan, Chahar Mahall and Bakhtiari, Khuzestan, and Sistan and Baluchestan) receive lower-quality services. These findings suggest that policymakers in Iran should work on several fronts including utilization, financing, and service quality to improve hospital care.