ArticleHealth services research2017
Implications of Variation in the Relationships between Beneficiary Characteristics and Medicare Advantage CAHPS Measures.
Article in Health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Supplemental Benefits and Plan Ratings Among Medicare Advantage Enrollees.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Case-mix adjustments for patient reported experience and outcome measures in primary care: an empirical approach to identify patient characteristics as case-mix adjusters based on a secondary analysis of an international survey among patients and their general practitioners in 34 countries.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Article
- The association between Asian patient race/ethnicity and lower satisfaction scores.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Comparison of Outpatient Satisfaction Survey Scores for Asian Physicians and Non-Hispanic White Physicians.JAMA network open · 2019Observational
- Older adults rate their mental health better than their general health.Journal of public health research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study how differences in quality score adjustments across Medicare Advantage contracts change comparisons for individuals and contracts. DATA SOURCES: Responses to the Medicare Advantage implementation of the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey from 2010 to 2014. STUDY
designWe fit national-and state-level hierarchical models to predict CAHPS scores for individuals and contracts, adjusted for self-reported education, general health, and mental health. We allow the effects of these variables on quality measures to vary across contracts with a hierarchical model. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsWe perform secondary data analysis. PRINCIPAL
findingsFor average consumers, standard adjustment is sufficient to represent variation in contract quality standardized to a common population. For people with characteristics far from average, personalized reporting using their characteristics and contract-specific coefficients can substantially change the expected quality measures across contracts. This effect is stronger when comparing among contracts within a state than across all contracts.
conclusionsCustomized reporting may help consumers select the best Medicare Advantage plan, but policies should protect against unintended consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.