首页> 外文期刊>Military Medicine: Official Journal of AMSUS, The Society of the Federal Health Agencies >Differences in beneficiary assessments of health care between TRICARE prime and TRICARE prime remote.
【24h】

Differences in beneficiary assessments of health care between TRICARE prime and TRICARE prime remote.

机译:TRICARE Prime和TRICARE Prime远程医疗服务的受益人评估之间的差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in health care ratings and reported health care experiences for active duty uniform services personnel using health care plans other than military treatment facilities. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional mail survey of a stratified sample of 3,871 beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime (TP) and TRICARE Prime Remote (TPR). The adjusted plan mean composite and global ratings were compared between TP and TPR participants. RESULTS: There were few significant differences between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was higher when patients chose their providers (TPR), and use of some preventive services was higher in managed-care plans (TP). Respondents in metropolitan locations differed significantly from those in nonmetropolitan locations in ratings of plans, quality of health care received, and access to services. CONCLUSIONS: The military health system is achieving some success in delivering uniform benefits but faces challenges in delivering high-quality uniform benefits in rural communities.
机译:目的:我们检查了卫生保健等级的差异,并报告了使用军事护理设施以外的卫生保健计划的现役制服服务人员的卫生保健经验。方法:我们使用横断面邮件调查,对参加TRICARE Prime(TP)和TRICARE Prime Remote(TPR)的3,871名受益人进行了分层抽样。 TP和TPR参与者之间比较了调整后的计划平均综合评分和全球评分。结果:两组之间几乎没有显着差异。当患者选择他们的提供者(TPR)时,患者满意度更高,而在管理护理计划(TP)中使用某些预防性服务的比例更高。大都市地区的受访者与非大都市地区的受访者在计划评级,所获得的医疗保健质量以及获得服务方面存在显着差异。结论:军事卫生系统在提供统一福利方面取得了一些成功,但在农村社区提供高质量统一福利方面面临挑战。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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