1 / 14

MAPCP PCMH-CAHPS Surveys

MAPCP PCMH-CAHPS Surveys. September 10, 2014 Presented by Kevin Smith. Objective. To determine how experiences reported by beneficiaries in MAPCP demonstration practices compare to national averages in 6 key domains. CAHPS Survey Design.

naif
Télécharger la présentation

MAPCP PCMH-CAHPS Surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAPCP PCMH-CAHPS Surveys September 10, 2014 Presented by Kevin Smith

  2. Objective • To determine how experiences reported by beneficiaries in MAPCP demonstration practices compare to national averages in 6 key domains

  3. CAHPS Survey Design • Sample frame: Random sample of beneficiaries assigned to MAPCP demonstration practices who had had made at least one visit in previous quarter • Practice name inserted in first survey question • Medicare beneficiaries only • Mail surveys: initial and follow-up 3 weeks later • Initial mailing = 1,463 beneficiaries per state • Target = 512 completed surveys per MAPCP state • Surveys conducted in April and May 2014

  4. CAHPS Survey Design • Rhode Island exception: * Administered PCMH-CAHPS to all practices in March * Obtained completed surveys for all 65+ beneficiaries

  5. PCMH-CAHPS – 12-month version 6 Multi-item Composites: • Access to care (5 items) • Communication with Providers (6 items) • Office Staff Interactions (2 items) • Comprehensive Orientation (3 yes/no items) • Self-management Support (2 yes/no items) • Shared decision-making (3 items)

  6. Composite Score Analysis • All composites converted to 0-100 scores (higher scores more favorable) • Two weighting adjustments: • Response propensity • Case-mix (age, education, health status) • Computed mean score and SE for each composite • Compared MAPCP means to two PCMH-CAHPS standards: • 1. CAHPS Database (320 practices reported to Westat) • 2. MA Health Quality Partners Study (MHQP; 1,790 patients)

  7. Response Rates • Response rates were very similar across states • Beneficiaries least likely to complete surveys: age < 65 years and Medicaid eligibles

  8. Access to Care Composite

  9. Communication with Providers Composite

  10. Shared Decision-Making Composite

  11. Self-Management Support Composite

  12. Comprehensive Orientation Composite

  13. Office Staff Composite

  14. Summary • Response rates higher than projected • Many MAPCP composite scores fell between MHQP and CAHPS Database standards • MAPCP state scores were generally comparable to the composites from the CAHPS Database: • 17 scores significantly lower • 18 scores no significant difference • 13 scores significantly higher • Best comparative performance for: Self-Management Support and Comprehensive Orientation • Worst comparative performance for: Access to Care and Shared Decision-Making

More Related