2020
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patient social risk factors and continuity of care for Medicare beneficiaries

Abstract: Objective To identify patient social risk factors associated with Continuity of Care (COC) index. Data Sources/Study Setting Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS), the Dartmouth Institute, and Area Resource File for 2006‐2013. Study Design We use regression methods to assess the effect of patient social risk factors on COC after adjusting for medical complexity. In secondary analyses, we assess the effect of social risk factors on annual utilization of physicians and specialists for evaluation and managem… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(184 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries experience lower rates of access and quality and worse outcomes in both programs . Racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries are less likely to receive annual wellness visits, preventive care, and specialty care and appear to be segregated within a smaller set of low-quality clinicians . They experience higher rates of hospitalization and mortality, as well as higher costs of care …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries experience lower rates of access and quality and worse outcomes in both programs . Racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries are less likely to receive annual wellness visits, preventive care, and specialty care and appear to be segregated within a smaller set of low-quality clinicians . They experience higher rates of hospitalization and mortality, as well as higher costs of care …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, adults aged 18+ in New York and children with complex medical needs have average Bice–Boxerman continuity of care indices around 0.3 (Arthur et al, 2018; Kern et al, 2018). Medicare beneficiaries of any age have an average continuity of care index around 0.4 (Johnston et al, 2020) and older adult Medicare beneficiaries have continuity of care indices ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 depending on the study sample (Johnston & Hockenberry, 2016; Romano et al, 2015). Autistic adults in our sample, however, had continuity of care indices ranging from 0.5 for Medicare beneficiaries to 0.6 for CAST patients and privately insured autistic adults.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for the higher continuity of care indices observed in our sample relative to prior studies is unclear but may be due to differing choices made in study design. For example, our study required at least four visits for continuity of care index calculations, while others have required only three or more visits (Johnston et al, 2020). In addition, our study controlled for age at first observed visit, sex, intellectual disability, number of outpatient visits, and duration (weeks) of observation while other studies controlled for different variables like social risk, medical complexity, and education in calculating adjusted Bice–Boxerman continuity of care indices (Johnston et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical nurses checked the messages or e-mails of the health platform at least 3 times a week, so as to inform patients about the importance of timing and quantitative drug use and notify the attending doctors to change the drugs or adjust the dosage. (4) With the outpatient follow-up assistant, patients' drug plans were optimized and adjusted according to the latest rehabilitation treatment of stroke [ 9 ], and a message would be sent to patients automatically 2 weeks after discharge to remind them to go to the stroke-specific clinic, with the specific process and address attached.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%