Dana Gelb Safran

SINCE 1972, Medicare beneficiaries in many parts of the country have had the option of enrolling in a Medicare-qualified health maintenance organization (HMO) rather than receiving their care through the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare program. The decision to allow seniors to enroll in HMOs was heralded by economists for the potential cost savings, and by geriatricians for the potential improvements in patient care in a more highly integrated system.^1-4 Integration of care assumes heightened importance in the care of patients with chronic illness, as is predominantly the case with Medicare beneficiaries (87%).⁵ A hallmark of the HMO model is its pairing of patients with a single, primary physician who assumes responsibility for coordinating and approving all aspects of the patient's care.

Our objective was to examine how patients of primary care physicians are responding to a changing health care environment. The quality of their relationship with their primary care physicians and their experience with organizational features of care were monitored over a 3-year period. This was a longitudinal observational study (1996-1999). Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and at follow-up. The questionnaires included measures of primary care quality from the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS). We included insured adults employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who remained with one primary care physician throughout the study period (n=2383). The outcomes were unadjusted mean scale score changes in each of the 8 PCAS over the 3 years and associated standardized difference scores (effect sizes). The 8 PCAS scales measured relationship quality (4 scales: communication, interpersonal treatment, physician's knowledge of the patient, patient trust) and organizational features of care (4 scales: financial access, organizational access, visit-based continuity, integration of care). There were significant declines in 3 of the 4 relationship scales: communication (effect size [ES] = -0.095), interpersonal treatment (ES = -0.115), and trust (ES = -0.046). Improvement was observed in physician's knowledge of the patient (ES = 0.051). There was a significant decline in organizational access (ES = -0.165) and an increase in visit-based continuity (ES = 0.060). There were no significant changes in financial access and integration of care indexes. The declines in access and 3 of the 4 indexes of physician-patient relationship quality are of concern, especially if they signify a trend.

Our objective was to evaluate 8 interpersonal and structural features of care as predictors of patients' voluntary disenrollment from their primary care physician's practice. We performed a longitudinal observational study in which participants completed a validated questionnaire at baseline (1996) and follow-up (1999). The questionnaire measured 4 elements of the quality of physician-patient relations (communication, interpersonal treatment, physician's knowledge of the patient, and patient trust) and 4 structural features of care (access, visit-based continuity, relationship duration, and integration of care). Study participants were insured adults who reported having a regular personal physician at baseline and who completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n=4108). The outcome measured was voluntary disenrollment from the primary physician's practice between baseline and follow-up. One fifth of the patients voluntarily left their primary physician's practice during the study period. When tested independently, all 8 scales significantly predicted voluntary disenrollment (P <.001), with somewhat larger effects associated with the 4 relationship quality measures. In multivariable models, a composite relationship quality factor most strongly predicted voluntary disenrollment (odds ratio [OR]=1.6; P<.001), and the 2 continuity scales also significantly predicted disenrollment (OR=1.1; P<.05). Access and integration did not significantly predict disenrollment in the presence of these variables. These findings highlight the importance of relationship quality in determining patients' loyalty to a physician's practice. They suggest that in the race to the bottom line medical practices and health plans cannot afford to ignore that the essence of medical care involves the interaction of one human being with another.

Background Primary care performance has been shown to differ under different models of health care delivery, even among various models of managed care. Pervasive changes in our nation's health care delivery systems, including the emergence of new forms of managed care, compel more current data. Objective To compare the primary care received by patients in each of 5 models of managed care (managed indemnity, point of service, network-model health maintenance organization [HMO], group-model HMO, and staff-model HMO) and identify specific characteristics of health plans associated with performance differences. Methods Cross-sectional observational study of Massachusetts adults who reported having a regular personal physician and for whom plan-type was known (n = 6018). Participants completed a validated questionnaire measuring 7 defining characteristics of primary care. Senior health plan executives provided information about financial and nonfinancial features of the plan's contractual arrangements with physicians. Results The managed indemnity system performed most favorably, with the highest adjusted mean scores for 8 of 10 measures (P<.05). Point of service and network-model HMO performance equaled the indemnity system on many measures. Staff-model HMOs performed least favorably, with adjusted mean scores that were lowest or statistically equivalent to the lowest score on all 10 scales. Among network-model HMOs, several features of the plan's contractual arrangement with physicians (ie, capitated physician payment, extensive use of clinical practice guidelines, financial incentives concerning patient satisfaction) were signficantly associated with performance (P<.05). Conclusions With US employers and purchasers having largely rejected traditional indemnity insurance as unaffordable, the results suggest that the current momentum toward open-model managed care plans is consistent with goals for high-quality primary care, but that the effects of specific financial and nonfinancial incentives used by plans must continue to be examined.

To examine differences in the quality of primary care delivered in prepaid and fee-for-service (FFS) health care systems. Longitudinal study of 1208 adult patients with chronic disease whose health insurance was through a traditional indemnity (FFS) plan, an independent practice association (IPA), or a health maintenance organization (HMO). Both IPA and HMO represent prepaid care systems. Patient- and physician-provided information was obtained by self-administered questionnaires. A total of 303 physician offices (family medicine, general internal medicine, endocrinology, or cardiology) in solo and group practices in three US cities. Seven indicators of primary care quality--accessibility (financial and organizational), continuity, comprehensiveness, coordination, and accountability (interpersonal and technical) of care. Performance on each was evaluated in FFS, IPA, and HMO settings. Analyses controlled for patient and physician characteristics. Financial access was highest in prepaid systems. Organizational access, continuity, and accountability were highest in the FFS system. Coordination was highest and comprehensiveness was lowest in HMOs. The results mark notable differences in core dimensions of primary care quality in each of three payment systems and raise questions regarding the associated cost inefficiencies and outcomes of care. In the current health care delivery reform climate, these findings call for consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. We suggest strategies for elevating performance in each.