This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bovbjerg, V. E. Articles by Rossiter, L. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bovbjerg, V. E. Articles by Rossiter, L. F. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Managed Care Medicaid Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Assessing Medicaid Recipient Access and Satisfaction

Fee-for-Service, Case Management, and Capitation

University of Virginia

Wally R. Smith

J. James Cotter

Donna K. McClish

Louis F. Rossiter

Virginia Commonwealth University

Medicaid increasingly requires enrollment in managed care programs. This study assessed access to care, satisfaction with care, and appointment wait times during the transition from fee for service to managed care using three annual Medicaid recipient surveys. There was little evidence of dissatisfaction or poorer access among managed care recipients. Fee-for-service recipients, compared to primary care case management, reported greater general (91 vs. 78%, p < .01) and specialty care access (92 vs. 80%, p < .01). When appointments were required, adult HMO enrollees, compared to case management, had longer waits for routine care in the second (5.8 ± 8.2 days vs. 4.0 ± 6.6) and third surveys(5.5 ± 6.9 days vs. 3.8 ± 7.3); waits for other appointments did not consistently differ by program. There were no significant program differences in overall satisfaction. Findings are tempered by the potential for response bias and geographic confounding. Continued monitoring is crucial to assure that access and satisfaction remain high in Medicaid managed care.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 23, No. 4, 422-440 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/01632780022034705


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?