This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To measure and compare care for adults with MS across managed care and fee-for-service (FFS) health systems.
Methods: The authors sampled adults with MS having physician visits over a 2-year period from a group model health maintenance organization (HMO) in southern California, from a midwestern independent practice association (IPA) model managed care plan, and from the FFS portion of the practices of a random sample of southern California neurologists. The authors mailed surveys to subjects in mid-1996; 930 of 1,164 (80%) of those eligible responded. The authors measured sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, management of recent changes in mobility, bladder control, and fatigue, use of a disease-modifying agent, assessment of general health symptoms and issues, and unmet information needs. The authors adjusted comparisons between systems for comorbidity, disease severity, and disease type.
Results: The groups differed on most sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. There were few differences in symptom management; differences that did exist tended toward more referrals or treatment for the FFS group. Access to the disease-modifying agent available at the time of the survey did not differ across systems, although patients’ perceptions of the rationale for not using the drug did vary. General health issues and symptoms were more often assessed in the FFS and IPA systems than in the HMO, but improvement was needed across all three systems of care. There were substantial unmet information needs in all groups and especially high ones in the FFS and HMO samples.
Conclusions: Strategies to improve care for people with MS should be developed and evaluated, particularly in areas like symptom assessment and meeting patient information needs. Where variations in service delivery exist, longitudinal studies are also needed to evaluate the potential impact on outcomes and to evaluate reasons for variation.
- Received February 23, 2000.
- Accepted July 20, 2000.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
