Association of Low-Value Care Exposure With Health Care Experience Ratings Among Patient Panels

IMPORTANCE

Patient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.

RESULTS

The final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

Patient Satisfaction with Clinicians and Short-Term Mortality in a US National Sample: the Roles of Morbidity and Gender

BACKGROUND

In a prior study, we found patient satisfaction was associated with mortality. However, that study included few deaths, yielding wide confidence intervals, was criticized for possible morbidity under-adjustment, and lacked power to explore sociodemographic moderation.

OBJECTIVE

To revisit the satisfaction-mortality association in a larger national sample, allowing more precise risk estimates, sequential morbidity adjustment, and exploration of sociodemographic moderation.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

2000-2015 Adult Medical Expenditures Panel Surveys (MEPS) respondents (N = 92,952), each enrolled for 2 consecutive years.

MAIN MEASURES

We used five Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS) items to assess patients' year 1 satisfaction with their clinicians. Death during the 2 years of MEPS participation was determined by proxy report. We modeled the satisfaction-mortality association in sequential regressions: model 1 included sociodemographics, model 2 added health status (approximating recommended CAHPS adjustment), and model 3 added smoking status, disease burden, and healthcare utilization.

KEY RESULTS

Satisfaction was not associated with mortality in model 1. In model 2, higher satisfaction was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratios [95% CIs] for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (top) quartiles vs. 1st quartile: 1.28 (1.01, 1.62), P = 0.04; 1.43 (1.12, 1.82), P = 0.004; and 1.57 (1.25, 1.98), P < 0.001, respectively). The associations were not attenuated in model 3. There was a significant interaction between gender and satisfaction (F[3, 443] = 3.62, P = 0.01). The association between satisfaction and mortality was significant in women only, such that their mortality advantage over men was eliminated in the highest satisfaction quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of higher patient satisfaction with clinicians with higher short-term mortality was evident only after CAHPS-recommended adjustment, was not attenuated by further morbidity adjustment, and was evident in women but not men. The findings suggest that characteristics among women who are more satisfied with their clinicians may be associated with increased mortality risk.

Impact of patient satisfaction ratings on physicians and clinical care

BACKGROUND

Although patient satisfaction ratings often drive positive changes, they may have unintended consequences.

OBJECTIVE

The study reported here aimed to evaluate the clinician-perceived effects of patient satisfaction ratings on job satisfaction and clinical care.

METHODS

A 26-item survey, developed by a state medical society in 2012 to assess the effects of patient satisfaction surveys, was administered online to physician members of a state-level medical society. Respondents remained anonymous.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty five physicians provided responses (3.9% of the estimated 4,000 physician members of the state-level medical society, or approximately 16% of the state's emergency department [ED] physicians). The respondents were predominantly male (85%) and practicing in solo or private practice (45%), hospital (43%), or academia (15%). The majority were ED (57%), followed by primary care (16%) physicians. Fifty-nine percent reported that their compensation was linked to patient satisfaction ratings. Seventy-eight percent reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction; 28% had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession. Twenty percent reported their employment being threatened because of patient satisfaction data. Almost half believed that pressure to obtain better scores promoted inappropriate care, including unnecessary antibiotic and opioid prescriptions, tests, procedures, and hospital admissions. Among 52 qualitative responses, only three were positive.

CONCLUSION

These pilot-level data suggest that patient satisfaction survey utilization may promote, under certain circumstances, job dissatisfaction, attrition, and inappropriate clinical care among some physicians. This is concerning, especially in the context of the progressive incorporation of patient satisfaction ratings as a quality-of-care metric, and highlights the need for a rigorous evaluation of the optimal methods for survey implementation and utilization.