ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Administrative Burden and Patient-Provider Communication Quality: Evidence From 11 Years of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationalePatient-provider communication quality, measured through the CAHPS programme that underpins Medicare value-based purchasing for over 200 million Americans, is among the most consequential evaluation metrics in healthcare. Although clinician and patient predictors of CAHPS scores have been studied, structural features of healthcare systems-in particular the administrative burden patients navigate through forms, prior authorisations, and billing bureaucracy-remain unexamined. This gap has direct implications for clinical practice evaluation: if administrative burden independently predicts the metric used to assess provider performance, risk-adjustment models may systematically disadvantage providers serving high-burden populations. AIMS AND
objectivesTo provide the first national estimate of the burden-communication association, to evaluate robustness through a multi-framework sensitivity architecture, and to quantify equity implications across education and insurance subgroups.
methodCross-sectional analysis of 9 MEPS waves (2012-2023; N = 110,459 US adults). Administrative burden was operationalised as a four-grade exposure from healthcare form encounters, with Grade 1 as the methodologically justified reference. We deployed IPTW via generalised boosted models, complemented by five sensitivity frameworks: negative control calibration, E-values benchmarked against CAHPS determinants, Oster bounds, health literacy calibration, and reverse-specification analysis.
resultsHeavy administrative burden was independently associated with 10.8 to 13.3 percentage points lower probability of optimal communication across all four CAHPS domains (all p < 0.001), exceeding disparities by education and insurance. Negative control associations were 3-4x weaker; E-values (1.58-1.71) exceeded the strongest CAHPS determinants. The gap was steepest among lower-education (-15.2 pp) and publicly insured (-14.3 pp) adults. Reverse-specification analysis demonstrated asymmetric directionality.
conclusionIn this first national quantification, administrative burden was independently and robustly associated with substantially lower communication quality. These findings position administrative complexity as a structural correlate of clinical encounter quality, and identify administrative simplification-grounded in SQUIRE-guided quality improvement-as a modifiable pathway for improving patient experience in disadvantaged populations served by clinical practice evaluation frameworks.
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.