首页> 外文期刊>Pediatrics: Official Publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics >Do Children Receiving Supplemental Security Income Who Are Enrolled in Medicaid Fare Better Under a Fee-for-Service or Comprehensive Capitation Model?
【24h】

Do Children Receiving Supplemental Security Income Who Are Enrolled in Medicaid Fare Better Under a Fee-for-Service or Comprehensive Capitation Model?

机译:在“按服务付费”或“综合人头费”模式下,获得医疗补助票价的,获得补充安全收入的孩子会更好吗?

获取原文
           

摘要

Context. States have been reluctant to enroll children with special health care needs (SHCN) into capitated managed care, because the financial incentives inherent in such plans may elicit undertreatment, restrict access to specific services and providers, and have adverse effects on quality. Little research has examined how children with SHCN who qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) fare under managed care versus the fee-for-service (FFS) system.Objective. To examine how enrollment of children with SHCN with SSI into a Medicaid capitated managed care plan differs from regular FFS with respect to unmet needs and access to care in the District of Columbia.Design, Setting, and Participants. We conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 1088 caregivers of children with SHCN who resided in the District of Columbia during the summer and fall of 2002.Main Outcome Measures. 1) Usual source of care; 2) unmet need for the following services during the 6-month period prior to the interview: physician/hospital, mental health, therapy services, dental care, durable medical equipment and supplies, prescription drugs, and home health services; and 3) caregivers' ratings of dimensions of access to services.Results. The percentage of FFS children who did not receive needed dental care, durable medical equipment/supplies, or prescription drugs was significantly larger than the percentage of children enrolled in the capitated managed care plan. We found no significant differences by plan type in unmet need for physician/hospital care, mental health services, home health service, or therapy services.The most problematic areas of access seem to be “wait time between making an appointment and the actual visit,” “waiting time in the doctor's office,” “office hours for appointments,” “getting medical advice by phone,” and “getting specialist's care if needed.” For each of these dimensions of access, children in the FFS system experienced significantly more of such access problems, compared with children in Health Services for Children With Special Needs (HSCSN). These 4 dimensions of access cause problems for 18% to 29% of FFS parents but only 13.6% to 22.3% of caregivers with a child in HSCSN. Three other dimensions of access, “convenience of doctor's office,” “getting emergency care if needed,” and “getting hospital care if needed,” also seemed to pose significantly more problems for caregivers with children in FFS plans, compared with those in HSCSN. These dimensions of access were only problematic for 9% to 14% of FFS caregivers and 5.9% to 7.7% of caregivers with children enrolled in HSCSN.Conclusions. Children in the managed care option have lower levels of unmet need than children in FFS plans. Caregivers of children in FFS plans encountered more difficulties in navigating the health care system, compared with those with children in managed care. We conclude that a combination of factors that characterize the capitated managed care plan are responsible for improving access to care and mitigating the level of unmet need among children with SHCN. These include the comprehensive care plan assessment, ongoing case management, primary care providers' gatekeeping role, and higher physician reimbursement.
机译:上下文。各国一直不愿将有特殊保健需要的儿童纳入首屈一指的管理式照料中,因为此类计划所固有的经济诱因可能引起治疗不足,限制获得特定服务和提供者的机会,并对质量产生不利影响。很少有研究检查有资格获得补充安全收入(SSI)的SHCN儿童在管理照料与服务付费(FFS)系统下的票价如何。在哥伦比亚特区,设计,环境和参与者的未满足需求和获得护理的方式,要检查将SHCN患有SSI的SHCN儿童纳入有Medicaid头衔的管理式照护计划与常规FFS有何不同。我们对2002年夏季和秋季居住在哥伦比亚特区的1088名SHCN儿童的看护者进行了随机电话采访。 1)通常的护理来源; 2)在面试前的六个月内未满足以下服务的需求:医师/医院,心理健康,治疗服务,牙科护理,耐用医疗设备和用品,处方药以及家庭保健服务;和3)照顾者对获得服务的维度的评级。未接受所需牙齿护理,耐用医疗设备/用品或处方药的FFS儿童百分比明显高于参加有条件的管理式照护计划的儿童百分比。在未满足的医生/医院护理,精神保健服务,家庭保健服务或治疗服务需求方面,我们发现按计划类型没有显着差异。访问最多的问题似乎是“在预约和实际拜访之间等待时间, ”,“在医生办公室的等待时间”,“预约的办公时间”,“通过电话获得医疗建议”以及“在需要时获得专家的照顾”。与有特殊需要儿童保健服务(HSCSN)中的儿童相比,在FFS系统中,对于访问的所有这些方面,儿童都经历了更多的此类访问问题。这四个方面的访问方式为FSC父母中有18%至29%的FFS父母带来了问题,但在有孩子的HSCSN中只有13.6%至22.3%的问题引起了问题。与HSCSN计划相比,FFS计划中带孩子的看护人的访问的其他三个方面,“医生办公室的便利性”,“必要时获得紧急护理”和“必要时获得医院护理”似乎也带来了更多问题。 。这些访问方式仅对FFS照顾者中9%至14%的儿童和HSCSN入学儿童中的5.9%至7.7%的人有问题。与FFS计划中的儿童相比,接受托管护理的儿童的未满足需求水平较低。与有儿童照管的儿童相比,参加FFS计划的儿童照护者在医疗保健系统的导航中遇到了更多困难。我们得出结论,归纳为首屈一指的托管式护理计划的因素综合起来,有助于改善SHCN儿童的就诊机会并减轻未满足需求的水平。这些措施包括全面的护理计划评估,持续的病例管理,初级护理提供者的看门作用以及更高的医生报销。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号