Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01.12.2017 | Research article

Disparities in receipt of recommended care among younger versus older medicare beneficiaries: a cohort study

verfasst von: Ling Na, Joel E. Streim, Liliana E. Pezzin, Jibby E. Kurichi, Dawei Xie, Hillary R. Bogner, Pui L. Kwong, Steven M. Asch, Sean Hennessy

Erschienen in: BMC Health Services Research | Ausgabe 1/2017

Abstract

Background

Although health disparities have been documented between Medicare beneficiaries based on age (<65 years vs. older age groups), underuse of recommended medical care in younger beneficiaries has not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we aim to identify and characterize vulnerabilities of the younger Medicare age group (aged <65 years) in relation to older age groups (aged 65–74 years and ≥75 years) and to explore age group as a determinant of use of recommended care among Medicare beneficiaries.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey between 2001 and 2008 (N = 30,117). Age group characteristics were compared using cross-sectional data at baseline. During follow-up, we assessed the association between age and receipt of recommended care on 38 recommended care indicators, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Follow-up periods differed by component indicator.

Results

At baseline, a higher proportion of younger beneficiaries experienced social disadvantage, disability and certain morbidities than older age groups. During follow-up, younger beneficiaries were significantly less likely to receive overall recommended care compared to those 65–74 years of age (adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.70–0.80). In addition, male gender, non-Hispanic black race, less than high school education, living alone, with children or with others, psychiatric disorders and higher activity limitation stages were all associated with underuse of recommended care.

Conclusions

Younger Medicare beneficiary status appears to be an independent risk factor for underuse of appropriate care. Support to ameliorate disparities in different social and health aspects may be warranted.

Background

The Healthy People 2020 initiative seeks to eliminate health disparities and improve the health of all groups in the US [1]. A distinct group that suffers multiple health disparities, yet has not been investigated thoroughly, is Medicare beneficiaries under 65 years of age. Younger Medicare beneficiaries face major social disadvantages and a disproportionately high burden of disabilities and medical morbidities. Unlike those who are eligible for Medicare solely due to being 65 years of age and older, younger enrollees must have received Social Security disability benefits for 24 months or have either amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or end-stage renal disease [2]. Younger Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to be male, non-white, economically and educationally disadvantaged, to be in fair or poor health, and to have a higher prevalence of disabilities and mental health disorders [36]. In 2012, younger beneficiaries constituted 17% of the 50.8 million Medicare enrollees, but triggered 20% of total Medicare expenditures [7]. Despite these higher expenditures, they underutilized preventive health services including influenza vaccine, eye and dental exams, mammograms, and prostate exams [4].
Braveman’s health disparity framework lays the ground for our analysis of younger Medicare beneficiaries [8]. A health disparity is a population-specific, potentially avoidable difference in health or important influences on health that is systematically associated with socially disadvantaged groups [8], such as the impoverished, racial minorities and individuals with disabilities. An important way to eliminate health disparities is through equitable health care, defined as equally accessible care to all users, and greater provision of care to users who demonstrate greater need [810]. In Braveman’s framework, a health disparity should be assessed by comparing groups in a social hierarchy in relation to each other [11], because such comparisons help policy makers identify vulnerable social groups, target interventions and reallocate resources to achieve greater health equity. Factors associated with health disparities include minority race [12, 13], lower income and less education [14], and disability [1517]. Often these vulnerabilities, as well as rural location and reduced physician supply, are also associated with poor quality of care [1825]. Although it is expected that younger beneficiary status is associated with health disparity due to Medicare enrollment criteria, younger beneficiaries demonstrated largely unmet health care needs.
However, younger beneficiaries are often excluded from studies of Medicare beneficiaries. The few pioneering studies comparing younger versus older beneficiaries highlighted the importance of the topic, although they tend to have several limitations [46]: self-reported health service utilization is subject to recall bias; types of services are often limited to preventive care; and crude associations without risk adjustment are not particularly useful for policy planning. To better capture underuse of care in the younger population, we employed claims data, a variety of indicators and risk-adjusted models. Furthermore, three main characteristics of younger beneficiaries (greater comorbidity, disability and socioeconomic disadvantages) do not always affect quality of care in the same direction. Multimorbid patients tend to get higher quality of care [26], disability has mixed quality [24]; minority race and lower income, while also having mixed quality, tend to predict worse care [21, 27]. Comparing younger with older Medicare beneficiaries can shed light on the direction and magnitude of these relationships, and their synergies and dys-synergies as they co-occur in younger beneficiary population. The comparison is important as a policy evaluation issue: is the Medicare program failing its younger beneficiaries?
We sought to identify predictors of underuse of recommended care by applying Asch’s underuse indicator system to recent Medicare claims of health service utilization [21]. Asch’s underuse indicator system is a clinically valid, comprehensive and claim-based measurement tool, which examines highly prevalent conditions and preventive care. These indicators have been validated on both inpatient, outpatient and physician service claims data for Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age and older [21, 24], but not younger beneficiaries. Therefore, we aimed to characterize vulnerabilities of the younger Medicare age group and then explore age group as a determinant of use of recommended care among Medicare enrollees. We assess the extent to which the earlier findings of disparities in sociodemographic and health characteristics hold in younger beneficiaries in our data. We further test our hypothesis that compared to older beneficiaries, younger beneficiaries are less likely to receive recommended care after accounting for sociodemographic characteristics, degree of comorbidity and activity limitation.

Methods

Study sample

We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of the Medicare population, the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) [28, 29]. The MCBS is a longitudinal panel survey that contains individual-level information of sociodemographics, health care encounters and health and physical functioning. Survey participants are typically interviewed three times per year for 4 years with health and functioning assessed in the fall of each year. The sample is replenished annually with newly enrolled beneficiaries replacing those who died or exited the survey. Survey data are linked to Medicare claims data that are available for 3 years after the initial survey. The MCBS uses multistage sampling design, with weights, strata and cluster information available. MCBS oversamples beneficiaries aged 85 years and older and those aged 65 years and younger. One study reported that the initial response rate of MCBS was 82.6%, similar to other national surveys [29]. The response rates were 82–83% across different age categories. The magnitude of potential bias due to non-response was reduced by non-response adjustment provided in the survey [29]. Our study included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who enrolled in the MCBS between 2001 and 2008. The entry panels of 2001–2007 were followed for 3 years, and panel 2008 was followed for 2 years because claims data beyond 2010 were not available.
The study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board.
To assess receipt of recommended care, we adapted the indicator system measuring underuse of necessary care that was developed by Asch and colleagues [21] and later modified by Chan [24]. The original indicators span several domains of care: initial evaluation, diagnostic tests, therapeutic interventions, hospitalization follow-up, monitoring of routine care and avoidable outcomes. The indicator system was tested and validated on 1992–1993 Medicare claims and was applied to 1994–1996 claims data [21]. After excluding six avoidable outcome indicators (because we wished to focus on process measures) and three indicators with inadequate sample size, we adapted 38 indicators or process measures, of recommended care to our study. Three of these 38 indicators measured receipt of preventive care: a physician annual visit, a biennial visual impairment assessment, and a biennial mammography for women aged between 45 and 75 years. The remaining 35 indicators examined care for acute and chronic conditions, including acute myocardial infarction, anemia, angina, breast cancer, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA), cholelithiasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), depression, diabetes, gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension.
Each indicator specified which beneficiaries were eligible (i.e., had an opportunity) for its assessment, the care that should be received, and a recommended time interval. Receipt of recommended care was coded as present if claims data indicated delivery of care within the recommended time frame, and absent otherwise. Receipt of care was assessed at the opportunity level; thus a beneficiary might have multiple opportunities for recommended care. Opportunities were not eligible for indicator assessment if they had incomplete follow-up time due to death or loss to follow-up, disenrollment in Part A and/or part B, or enrollment in a managed care program during the assessment period. For indicators with short assessment periods (2–4 weeks), subjects were excluded if there was a hospitalization or ER visit during the follow-up period.

Age groups

Our main interest was Medicare beneficiaries younger than age 65. Recognizing the potential heterogeneity of older beneficiaries in their health status and health care quality [5], we classified them as younger old (65–74 years) and older old (75 years and older).

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics

Sociodemographics and clinical characteristics were assessed based on self- or proxy-report in the surveys. Sociodemographics included sex, race (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic or other), education (less than high school education or high school diploma and above), dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, living arrangement (alone, with spouse, with children, with others or in a retirement community), and residential location (metropolitan or non-metropolitan area). Health and clinical characteristics were self-reported and included number of comorbidities (hypertension, myocardial infarction, angina/chronic heart disease, other heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, Parkinson’s disease, emphysema/asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis, non-rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis/soft bones and cancers other than skin), presence of a developmental, psychiatric or cognitive disorder (mental retardation, Alzheimer’s/dementia or mental/psychiatric disorders), vision impairment, and hearing impairment. In addition, we included an indicator of proxy versus self-response to the survey. We chose not to use specific conditions or comorbidity indices based on claims ICD-9 codes because the assessment periods of these indices partially overlap with indicator-level follow-up periods, instead of preceding follow-up periods.

Activity limitation stages

Activity limitation stages based on the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) [30] in separate activity of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) domains were derived from survey data for each respondent. ADL stages include the self-care functions of eating, toileting, dressing, bathing or showering, getting in/out of bed or chairs and walking. IADL stages incorporate the domestic life functions of telephoning, managing money, preparing meals, doing light housework, shopping for personal items and doing heavy housework. Five ADL stages (0–IV) and five IADL stages (0–IV) present a combination of severity and types of disability (Appendix). Stage III was designed as a non-fitting stage to characterize unusual limitation patterns. Methods for ascertaining stage are documented elsewhere [31, 32].

Statistical analysis

Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in baseline characteristics among the three age groups. Pairwise chi-square tests were applied to statistically significant between-group differences, with the younger and older old compared to the younger old. Receipt of recommended care was expressed as a percent by dividing the number of instances of recommended care received by the number of opportunities. We calculated the weighted percent of receipt of overall (collapsed across the 38 indicators) and indicator-specific recommended care for all age groups combined and for each age group separately. The association between age group and receipt of overall recommended care was assessed first in an unadjusted logistic regression model, and subsequently in multivariable logistic regression. Separate adjusted models were fit for ADL and IADL stages because collinearity precludes including both domains in a single model. Age group and covariates including sex, race and education were assessed at baseline, and other covariates that may vary over time were assessed in the survey cycle immediately preceding indicator the follow-up date. The model applied survey sampling weights and accounted for the complex sampling design and non-independence of multiple eligible indicators for the same individual. Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Sample characteristics

The distribution of the baseline sample (N = 30,117) by age group was 16% were younger than age 65 years, 48% aged 65–74 years, and 36% aged 75 years and older. Table 1 lists baseline characteristics by age group. The most striking sociodemographic differences among the age groups were in race/ethnicity, living arrangement and dual enrollment. Compared to the older groups, younger beneficiaries were more likely to be non-Hispanic black (19% vs. 9% and 7%) and Hispanic (11% vs. 8% and 6%), to live with others (24% vs. 5% and 4%), and to be dually-enrolled in Medicaid (44% vs. 11% and 12%).
Table 1
Sociodemographic, functional and clinical characteristics of medicare beneficiaries (2001–2008) by age group
Variable
Total
N = 30,117
Age < 65
N (column weighted %)
5201 (16.3)
Age 65–74
N (column weighted %)
11,289 (47.5)
Age ≥ 75
N (column weighted %)
13,627 (36.2)
p-value
Gender
<.0001
 Male
13,649 (45.2)
2853 (52.6)
5360 (46.3)
5436 (40.3)
 
 Female
16,468 (54.8)
2348 (47.4)
5929 (53.7)
8191 (59.7)
 
Race/Ethnicity
<.0001
 Non-Hispanic White
23,893 (79.2)
3459 (67.3)
9017 (79.9)
11,417 (83.7)
 
 Non-Hispanic Black
2966 (9.7)
1007 (18.6)
1007 (8.7)
952 (7.0)
 
 Hispanic
2372 (7.9)
580 (11.2)
913 (8.0)
879 (6.3)
 
 Other
886 (3.2)
155 (2.9)
352 (3.4)
379 (2.9)
 
Living arrangement
<.0001
 Retirement community
1905 (5.6)
101 (2.2)
430 (3.6)
1374 (9.7)
 
 With spouse
14,124 (51.2)
1649 (39.1)
7004 (62.6)
5471 (41.6)
 
 With children
3158 (9.5)
658 (11.4)
802 (7.0)
1698 (12.1)
 
 With others
2762 (7.8)
1597 (23.6)
589 (5.2)
576 (4.2)
 
 Alone
8168 (25.9)
1196 (23.8)
2464 (21.6)
4508 (32.5)
 
Dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid
<.0001
 No
24,292 (83.5)
2409 (56.4)
9984 (89.4)
11,899 (87.8)
 
 Yes
5825 (16.5)
2792 (43.6)
1305 (10.6)
1728 (12.2)
 
Education
<.0001
 High school diploma or above
21,252 (72.8)
3527 (69.1)
8543 (77.4)
9182 (68.5)
 
 No high school diploma
8865 (27.2)
1674 (30.9)
2746 (22.6)
4445 (31.5)
 
Living in metropolitan area
<.0001
 No
7942 (25.0)
1598 (29.0)
3092 (25.1)
3252 (23.1)
 
 Yes
22,175 (75.0)
3603 (71.0)
8197 (74.9)
10,375 (76.9)
 
Proxy report
<.0001
 No
27,492 (92.8)
4277 (87.2)
10,757 (95.4)
12,458 (91.9)
 
 Yes
2625 (7.2)
924 (12.8)
532 (4.6)
1169 (8.1)
 
Vision impairment
<.0001
 No
27,674 (92.7)
4621 (87.9)
10,752 (95.8)
12,301 (90.8)
 
 Yes
2443 (7.3)
580 (12.1)
537 (4.2)
1326 (9.2)
 
Hearing impairment
<.0001
 No
27,934 (93.5)
4890 (93.8)
10,745 (95.5)
12,299 (90.8)
 
 Yes
2183 (6.5)
311 (6.2)
544 (4.5)
1328 (9.2)
 
Cognitive, developmental and psychiatric disordersa
<.0001
 No
25,662 (87.3)
2766 (60.9)
10,442 (93.0)
12,454 (91.8)
 
 Yes
4455 (12.7)
2435 (39.1)
847 (7.0)
1173 (8.2)
 
Average number of comorbiditiesb
2.2 ± 0
2.3 ± 0
2.1 ± 0
2.4 ± 0
<.0001
Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Stages
<.0001
 0
19,874 (68.3)
2599 (45.4)
8846 (79.9)
8429 (63.5)
 
 I
5181 (16.5)
1156 (25.2)
1398 (11.8)
2627 (18.9)
 
 II
2622 (7.9)
656 (13.7)
568 (4.5)
1398 (9.6)
 
 III
2047 (6.2)
656 (13.5)
417 (3.3)
974 (6.7)
 
 IV
393 (1.1)
134 (2.3)
60 (0.5)
199 (1.3)
 
Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) stages
<.0001
 0
16,911 (59.4)
1339 (23.8)
8169 (74.0)
7403 (56.2)
 
 I
5332 (17.6)
1063 (24.9)
1670 (14.2)
2599 (18.8)
 
 II
2979 (9.5)
1046 (22.2)
675 (5.6)
1258 (8.9)
 
 III
4089 (11.4)
1500 (25.0)
665 (5.3)
1924 (13.2)
 
 IV
806 (2.1)
253 (4.0)
110 (0.8)
443 (2.9)
 
aCognitive, developmental, and psychiatric disorders include: mental retardation, Alzheimer’s/dementia and mental/psychiatric disorder
bNumber of comorbidities including: hypertension, myocardial infarction, angina/chronic heart disease, other heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, Parkinson’s disease, emphysema/asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis, non-rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis/soft bones and other (non-skin) cancer
Younger beneficiaries carried a disproportionate burden of developmental, cognitive and psychiatric disorders (39% vs. 7% and 8%). They were significantly less likely to be functionally independent in ADLs (stage 0) compared to the other two older age groups (45% vs. 80% and 64%). Differences in IADL stages were even more striking: only 24% of younger beneficiaries were IADL independent (stage 0) compared to 74% of the younger old and 56% of the older old. They relied more heavily on proxy responses to survey questions and were more likely to be visually impaired.
In total 20,449 unique beneficiaries were eligible for at least one opportunity for recommended care, including 3756 younger, 7180 younger old and 9513 older old beneficiaries. These beneficiaries triggered 89,076 opportunities for care, with 14,015 for younger beneficiaries, 32,372 opportunities for the younger old, and 42,689 for the older old. As shown in Table 2, eligible younger beneficiaries received recommended care in 64% of the opportunities, in contrast to 73% for the younger old and 75% for the older old.
Table 2
Receipt of recommended care among medicare beneficiaries (2001–2008) by age group at the indicator level
 
Overall
Age < 65
Age 65–74
Age ≥75
Total number of opportunities for recommended care (unweighted denominator)
89,076
14,015
32,372
42,689
Total number of instances of recommended care received (unweighted numerator)
64,157
8702
23,582
31,873
Weighted percent of recommended care received
72.1%
63.9%
72.7%
74.8%
Table 3 presents the weighted percent of receiving recommended care by age group for each indicator. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prohibits publishing cell size below 11, yielding 30 eligible indicators for comparison, 14 of which had a statistically significant difference (p < .05) in receipt of recommended care by age group, shown in Fig. 1. Among these 14 indicators, pair-wise chi-square tests showed younger beneficiaries underused care on 10 indicators when compared to the younger old, and the older old group underutilized care on 5 indicators. Younger beneficiaries outperformed younger old for 1 indicator, while the older old did so for 4 indicators. Notably, younger beneficiaries were less likely than the younger old to have a follow-up visit within 4 weeks following hospital discharge for CVA, TIA and gastrointestinal (GI) bleed, to obtain a hematocrit within 4 weeks following an initial diagnosis of GI bleed, to receive routine care for diabetes (a glycosylated hemoglobin every 6 months, an annual eye exam and a doctor visit every 6 months), and preventive care in general (an annual physician visit, a biennial mammogram and a biennial assessment of visual impairment).
Table 3
Receipt of recommended care by indicator among medicare beneficiaries (2001–2008) by age group
Recommended care indicator
Overall
N = 30,117
Age < 65
5201 (16.3%)
Age 65–74
11,289 (47.5%)
Age ≥ 75
13,627 (36.2%)
P-value for difference among age groups
Raw numerator/denominator
Weighted percent (%)
Weighted percent (%)
Weighted percent (%)
Weighted percent (%)
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction
231/298
79
84
79
78
0.748
 Cholesterol test every 6 months for patients hospitalized for myocardial infarction who have hypercholesterolemia
224/365
64
71
69
58
0.188
Anemia
 Gastrointestinal workup for patients with iron deficiency anemia no later than 3 months after iron deficiency
355/1112
33
34
37
30
0.273
 Hematocrit/hemoglobin between 1 and 6 months following initial diagnosis of anemia
1723/2576
68
67
67
69
0.633
Angina
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for unstable angina
193/234
83
76
83
86
0.407
 Visit every 6 months for patients with chronic stable angina
1826/1940
94
92
93
96
0.135
 Follow-up visit or hospitalization within 4 weeks of initial diagnosis of unstable angina
196/236
84
77
82
89
0.150
 Lipid profile within 6 months after initial diagnosis of angina
59/767
9
X
14
4
0.0003
Breast Cancer
 Interval from biopsy and definitive therapy less than 3 months for patients with breast cancer and eventual mastectomy
60/79
73
X
70
81
0.273
 Mammogram within 3 months preceding an initial diagnosis of breast cancer
110/182
61
X
60
63
0.917
 Chest x-ray within 3 months preceding or following initial diagnosis of breast cancer
96/182
51
43
54
51
0.631
 Visit within 12 months for breast cancer patients who have undergone mastectomy without cytotoxic chemotherapy
71/71
100
X
100
100
N/A
 Mammography every year for patients with a history of breast cancer
416/629
69
70
78
61
0.0004
Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA)
 Carotid imaging within 2 weeks of initial diagnosis for patients hospitalized for carotid artery stroke
235/312
75
95
68
75
<.0001
 Interval between carotid imaging and carotid endarterectomy less than 2 months for cerebrovascular accident patients with eventual carotid endarterectomy
112/134
84
X
87
83
0.501
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients for cerebrovascular accident
379/571
67
57
75
64
0.011
Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA)
 Electrocardiogram within 2 days of initial diagnosis of transient ischemic attack
92/621
15
X
16
14
0.748
 Interval between carotid imaging and carotid endarterectomy less than 2 months for TIA patients with eventual carotid endarterectomy
45/54
85
X
91
82
0.012
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack
184/237
79
61
95
74
<.0001
 Visit every year for patients with diagnosis of transient ischemic attack
1540/1596
97
96
97
96
0.740
Cholelithiasis
 Cholecystectomy within 1 month preceding or 3 months following diagnosis of cholelithiasis and one or more of the following: cholecystitis, cholangitis, gallstone pancreatitis
282/699
41
43
48
34
0.030
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
 Visit every 6 months for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
4732/5197
91
90
91
92
0.236
Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)
 Chest x-ray within 3 months of initial diagnosis of congestive heart failure
1097/1580
69
72
64
71
0.067
 Electrocardiogram within 3 months of initial diagnosis of congestive heart failure
1023/1578
66
67
66
66
0.953
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for congestive heart failure
490/663
74
71
82
70
0.032
 Visit every 6 months for patients with congestive heart failure
4142/4527
92
91
93
91
0.201
Depression
 Visit within 2 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for depression
95/173
53
49
55
57
0.593
Diabetes Mellitus (DM)
 Glycosylated hemoglobin every 6 months for patients with diabetes
3499/6756
54
52
58
50
<.0001
 Eye exam every year for patients with diabetes
3160/6491
49
34
50
54
<.0001
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for diabetes
295/430
68
71
63
70
0.466
 Visit every 6 months for patients with diabetes
6185/6756
92
89
92
92
0.036
Gastrointestinal Bleeding
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding
273/373
73
51
74
78
0.001
 Hematocrit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal bleeding
201/373
54
36
57
58
0.025
 Follow-up visit within 4 weeks of initial diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleeding
491/676
74
74
77
69
0.195
Hypertension
 Visit within 4 weeks following discharge of patients hospitalized with malignant or otherwise severe hypertension
49/74
63
X
62
76
0.0002
Preventive Care
 Visit every year
17,905/19,535
92
87
91
94
<.0001
 Assessment of visual impairment every 2 years
9363/16,759
56
34
57
64
<.0001
 Mammography every 2 years for females aged between 45 and 75 (inclusive) years
2728/4240
65
58
67
61
<.0001
Note. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, cell size below 11, marked with an X, is not permitted for publication
Compared to the younger old, the older old beneficiaries were less likely to receive follow-up care for CHF, TIA and CVA after hospital discharge. However, the older old were more likely to attend an annual doctor visit, to have a biennial eye exam, and to receive eye exam for diabetes.

Factors associated with receipt of recommended care

Table 4 displays the association between age group and receipt of recommended care in a bivariate logistic regression model and multivariable logistic regression models that included ADL and IADL stages separately. In the unadjusted model, the odds of receiving overall recommended care was 34% lower among younger beneficiaries, but 11% higher among older old beneficiaries, each compared to the younger old.
Table 4
Logistic Regression Models Predicting Receipt of Recommended Care among Medicare Beneficiaries (2001–2008)
Variables
Model 1
Model 2 with ADL stages
Model 2 with IADL stages
 
OR (95% CI)
p-value
OR (95% CI)
p-value
OR (95% CI)
p-value
Age (ref: 65–74)
 
<.0001
 
<.0001
 
<.0001
 <65
0.66 (0.62–0.71)
<.0001
0.75 (0.70–0.80)
<.0001
0.75 (0.69–0.80)
<.0001
 ≥75
1.11 (1.07–1.16)
<.0001
1.15 (1.10–1.20)
<.0001
1.15 (1.10–1.20)
<.0001
Gender (ref: female)
 Male
  
0.86 (0.82–0.90)
<.0001
0.86 (0.82–0.90)
<.0001
Race/Ethnicity (ref: Non-Hispanic White)
   
0.005
 
0.005
 Hispanic
  
0.95 (0.87–1.05)
0.337
0.95 (0.86–1.04)
0.277
 Non-Hispanic Black
  
0.88 (0.82–0.95)
0.0004
0.88 (0.82–0.95)
0.0005
 Other
  
0.96 (0.86–1.08)
0.527
0.96 (0.85–1.08)
0.464
Education (ref: high school diploma)
 No high school diploma
  
0.85 (0.81–0.89)
<.0001
0.85 (0.81–0.89)
<.0001
Living Arrangement (ref: live with spouse)
   
<.0001
 
<.0001
 Alone
  
0.88 (0.83–0.92)
<.0001
0.87 (0.83–0.92)
<.0001
 Retirement community
  
0.95 (0.87–1.03)
0.199
0.95 (0.87–1.03)
0.188
 With children
  
0.77 (0.72–0.83)
<.0001
0.77 (0.72–0.83)
<.0001
 With others
  
0.82 (0.75–0.89)
<.0001
0.83 (0.76–0.90)
<.0001
Residential Location (ref: Non-Metropolitan location)
 Metropolitan location
  
1.14 (1.09–1.18)
<.0001
1.13 (1.08–1.18)
<.0001
Dual Enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid (ref: Medicare only)
 Dual enrollment
  
1.06 (1.00–1.13)
0.056
1.06 (1.00–1.13)
0.072
Proxy Response (ref: no)
 Proxy
  
0.87 (0.81–0.93)
<.0001
0.90 (0.84–0.96)
0.003
Conditions (ref: no)
 Vision impairment
  
1.01 (0.94–1.09)
0.731
1.02 (0.94–1.10)
0.694
 Hearing impairment
  
0.95 (0.88–1.02)
0.162
0.96 (0.89–1.03)
0.242
 Cognitive, developmental, and psychiatric disorders*
  
0.89 (0.83–0.94)
<.0001
0.90 (0.84–0.96)
<.0001
Sum of comorbidities**
  
1.12 (1.11–1.14)
<.0001
1.12 (1.10–1.13)
0.001
Stage (ref: Stage 0)
   
<.0001
 
<.0001
 Stage I
  
0.92 (0.88–0.97)
0.003
0.99 (0.94–1.05)
0.763
 Stage II
  
0.87 (0.81–0.93)
<.0001
0.89 (0.84–0.96)
0.001
 Stage III
  
0.80 (0.74–0.87)
<.0001
0.87 (0.81–0.93)
<.0001
 Stage IV
  
0.64 (0.54–0.76)
<.0001
0.69 (0.61–0.78)
<.0001
Note: Ref=reference category. For a variable that has more than two categories, a total p value of the variable is reported
Model 1 is adjusted only for age group; model 2’s are further adjusted for sociodemographics, health and clinical characteristics and ADL stages and IADL stages separately
* Cognitive, developmental, and psychiatric disorders include: mental retardation, Alzheimer's/dementia, and mental/psychiatric disorder
** Sum of comorbidities include: hypertension, myocardial infarction, angina/chronic heart disease, other heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's disease, emphysema/asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis, non-rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis/soft bones, and other (non-skin) cancer
Model estimates for separate stage systems were similar (Table 4), after excluding less than 2% of missing cases. In the multivariable model adjusted for ADL stages, the association (OR) between younger age and receipt of recommended care was attenuated to 0.75. Male gender, black race, less than high school education, living alone, with children or with others (each compared to living with spouse), proxy response and having developmental, cognitive or psychiatric disorders were all independently associated with underuse of recommended care. Living in a metropolitan area and a greater number of comorbidities were associated with appropriate care. Both ADL and IADL stages showed ordered associations with receipt of recommended care. Compared to no ADL limitations (stage 0), the likelihood of receiving recommended care declined with higher ADL stages, with ORs (95% CIs) across stages I–IV at 0.92 (0.88–0.97), 0.87 (0.81–0.93), 0.80 (0.74–0.87) and 0.64 (0.54–0.76), respectively. A similar pattern held for IADL stages.

Discussion

Research on the appropriate use of health services by younger Medicare beneficiaries remains quite limited [3]. In this nationally representative study of community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, we found that those younger than 65 compared to those 65–74 years of age had a higher proportion of characteristics conventionally associated with social disadvantage. Such characteristics include being non-Hispanic Black, living with disabilities, lower educational achievement and non-metropolitan residency. Even after adjusting for these factors and further adjusting for dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, cognitive, developmental or psychiatric disorders and vision impairment, we found substantially reduced use of recommended care by younger Medicare beneficiaries. In contrast, the older old group was slightly more likely than the younger old to receive recommended care.
Our results are consistent with previous reports on younger beneficiaries with respect to the proportion of those who were non-Hispanic black, who were eligible for Medicare and Medicaid [5, 33] and who self-reported to have cognitive, developmental or psychiatric disorders [6]. Younger beneficiaries demonstrated a higher prevalence of self- or proxy- reported dependencies in ADLs and IADLs in our study than previously reported [34]. The results suggest that activity limitations of younger Medicare beneficiaries have not improved over time, supporting need for interventions.
Although it has been reported that younger Medicare beneficiaries significantly underuse preventive care compared to older beneficiaries [4], our study was able to quantify the extent of such deficits. We found the most striking deficiencies across the three prevention indices, routine care for diabetes and post-discharge follow-up for CVA and TIA. Inadequate care, particularly for chronic conditions, suggests that the current service delivery model that centers on acute illness [35] does not meet current needs for prevention and chronic conditions. The reorientation of Medicare to the management of chronic illness and the amelioration of activity limitation could improve the care and reduce costs for chronically ill beneficiaries [36]. Appropriate use of preventive services, medication management and behavioral interventions have been proposed as promising strategies for reducing severity of chronic conditions and their complications [3].
Younger beneficiary status was an independent predictor of underuse in the adjusted model, possibly due to the operation of unknown factors influencing underuse in this population, such as infrequent contact with the health system, especially outpatient services. A post-hoc analysis revealed that among beneficiaries with a cognitive, developmental or psychiatric disorder, the three age groups made similar numbers of outpatient visits (Median = 2.2, 2.1 and 1.9 respectively); in contrast, among beneficiaries without those disorders, younger beneficiaries visited a doctor more often than the younger old and older old beneficiaries (Median = 2.1 vs. 1.0 and 1.5). The excess office visits made by younger beneficiaries were likely due to Medicare eligible conditions other than cognitive, developmental or psychiatric disorders. These findings suggest that a greater number of office visits does not necessarily translate into adequate care for younger beneficiaries. One explanation for the paradox is that specialists may not make recommendations for preventive care outside their area of specialty. We speculate that improved care coordination among mental health, primary care and specialty care providers may contribute to a better understanding of patients’ comprehensive care needs and making critical recommendations.
In contrast, older old beneficiaries had a slightly better chance to get recommended care than the younger old, all else equal. This is consistent with our post-hoc finding that on average older old beneficiaries visited their doctors more often than the younger old. We found greater comorbidity associated with greater likelihood of receiving appropriate care, similar to published reports [26, 37]. Increased use of recommended care for both groups is likely due to their frequent office visits leading to a greater chance to fulfill care requirements.
As expected, non-Hispanic black race, less than high-school education, non-Metropolitan residence and disability independently predicted underuse of care. Although reversed racial disparity has been reported [27], likely due to selection bias of the samples [38], different sets of quality of care indicators studied, and use of claims versus self-reported data, underuse of medical care among racial minorities is more accentuated in literature [21, 39]. Improving surveillance data systems, creating a culturally-competent medical workforce and recruiting minority health professionals have emerged as strategies to address racial/ethnic differences in health and health care [40, 41]. Lower socioeconomic position [42] and rural settings [43, 44] diminish the chance to obtaining cancer prevention services. Removal of access barriers to care, especially financial barriers, was endorsed as central to create equity in health outcomes across different socioeconomic groups [45]. Availability of services, knowledge or physician recommendations of needed care and transportation are often reported factors underlying the geographic disparities in care and are points to address in interventions [43, 44] Greater use of home care in rural areas was also reported [46]. Future research may investigate population-level utilization of a wide range of health services. Disability is a known risk factor for underuse of certain care among Medicare beneficiaries excluding younger beneficiaries [24, 25]. This is also reflected in our study, which found a monotonic increase in care disparities with higher activity limitation stages (greater severity). Physical barriers, lack of professional assistance and social support, as well as experiences of distress likely influence service underuse [47, 48]. Resource reallocation targeting disabled individuals may aid their access to care and increase use of recommended care. Furthermore, since functional decline after hospitalization is fairly common [49], establishing care continuity in communities after hospital discharge can be critical for disabled persons.
We studied three Medicare age groups who likely occupy different positions in a social hierarchy and differ in their health status and utilization of health services. Such comparison is useful in identifying a disadvantaged population and its care needs, which subsequently informs resource reallocation to achieve greater equity. The study has several limitations. This study does not answer the question why younger beneficiaries underuse recommended care. The mechanism can be explained by access barriers to care, care not recommended by providers, or care recommended by providers but was not sought by the patient. For instance, some beneficiaries did not seek or comply with recommended care because of their limited health literacy or knowledge about their care plans [50, 51]. It has also been reported that providers tend to downplay the importance of healthy behaviors and disease prevention in the lives of their disabled patients [47]. Due to data limitation, we were not able to incorporate these potential causes for failure of care compliance in our analysis. We recommend in-depth observational studies that explore patient-doctor encounters to determine the causes of underuse and what types of appropriate preventions should be in place. Asch’s indicator system reflects care needs of highly prevalent conditions among the elderly population. These indicators may not reflect all care needs of younger beneficiaries, especially those experiencing cognitive, developmental or psychiatric disorders. Indicators that address the care for prevalent diseases in younger beneficiaries are highly desirable. Stratified analysis of receipt of recommended care among beneficiaries with versus without psychiatric disorders may also be considered, since persons who have been admitted for mental disorders tend to have poorer quality of care and higher mortality in somatic diseases, compared to persons who only have somatic diseases [52]. We acknowledge the likelihood of residual confounding in socioeconomic, comorbidity and to a lesser extent disability, measures. It is possible that even after controlling for all these variables, the reason of underuse among younger beneficiaries is that they are still sicker and more disadvantaged, rather than an independent effect of younger beneficiary status. Although there may be geographic variations in receipt of recommended care, MCBS is not powered to investigate state-level estimates. MCBS claims data (2002–2010) used in this study are not the most recent; however, the structure of the Medicare program eligibility for those under 65 has not changed, and the historical data matches the period when Asch’s indicators were developed. Due to incomplete claims data from beneficiaries enrolled in a managed care program, our results only apply to the fee-for-service Medicare population. Even though we combined eight beneficiary cohorts to compensate for small sample sizes associated with certain indicators, some indicators could not be addressed in the younger beneficiaries since cell sizes were still too small to report.

Conclusions

Our study has identified social and medical vulnerabilities of younger Medicare beneficiaries, and their lack of overall and specific type of care. Our results based on improved indicator metrics corroborated previous findings of potential influences on health service underutilization. CMS (Quality Strategy 2016) envisions care as valued-based: person-centered, cost-efficient and health-promoting [53]. It sets effective communication and coordination of care, prevention and treatment of chronic diseases, and partnership with communities to promote healthy living as among its goals, and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities and strengthening infrastructure and data systems as part of its foundational principles. Our findings provide evidence for the need of interventions that may bridge the health equity gap in the Medicare population.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Margaret G. Stineman, MD, for conceptualizing the study, obtaining funding and providing input in the manuscript.

Funding

The research for this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01AG040105).

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)’s Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. CMS has granted our research team access to the survey data. However, restrictions apply to the availability of the full data, which were used under license for the NIH-grant funded project, and so are not publicly available.

Authors’ contributions

LN contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, data analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript; JS, LP, JK, DX, HB contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, data interpretation and critical review of the manuscript; FK contributed to conceptualization and design of the study, data analysis and interpretation and review of the manuscript; SA critically reviewed the manuscript; SH contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, data interpretation, critical review and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Not applicable.
The study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board, with approval number 817595. Consent to participate in this study was not applicable.

Disclosures

The research for this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01HD074756). There are no personal conflicts of interest of any of the authors in the past 3 years, and no authors reported disclosures beyond the funding source. The opinions and conclusions of the authors are not necessarily those of the sponsoring agency. We certify that no party having a direct interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on us or on any organization with which we are associated. This material has not been previously presented at a meeting.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy J, Tuleu IB. Working age medicare beneficiaries with disabilities: population characteristics and policy considerations. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2007;30(3):268–91.PubMed Kennedy J, Tuleu IB. Working age medicare beneficiaries with disabilities: population characteristics and policy considerations. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2007;30(3):268–91.PubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Cubanski J, Neuman P. Medicare doesn’t work as well for younger, disabled beneficiaries as it does for older enrollees. Health Aff. 2010;29(9):1725–33.CrossRef Cubanski J, Neuman P. Medicare doesn’t work as well for younger, disabled beneficiaries as it does for older enrollees. Health Aff. 2010;29(9):1725–33.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Iezzoni LI. Quality of care for medicare beneficiaries with disabilities under the age of 65 years. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2006;6(3):261–73.CrossRefPubMed Iezzoni LI. Quality of care for medicare beneficiaries with disabilities under the age of 65 years. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2006;6(3):261–73.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Foote SM, Hogan C. Disability profile and health care costs of medicare beneficiaries under age sixty-five. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(6):242–53.CrossRef Foote SM, Hogan C. Disability profile and health care costs of medicare beneficiaries under age sixty-five. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(6):242–53.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Braveman P. Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:167–94.CrossRefPubMed Braveman P. Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:167–94.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment, vol. 1. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1980. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment, vol. 1. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press; 1980.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(11):1611–25.CrossRefPubMed Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(11):1611–25.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Peek ME, Cargill A, Huang ES. Diabetes health disparities: a systematic review of health care interventions. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(5 Suppl):101S–56S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peek ME, Cargill A, Huang ES. Diabetes health disparities: a systematic review of health care interventions. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(5 Suppl):101S–56S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Adler NE, Stewart J. Health disparities across the lifespan: meaning, methods, and mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186:5–23.CrossRefPubMed Adler NE, Stewart J. Health disparities across the lifespan: meaning, methods, and mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186:5–23.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hennessy S, Kurichi JE, Pan Q, Streim JE, Bogner HR, Xie D, Stineman MG. Disability stage is an independent risk factor for mortality in medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. PM R. 2015;7(12):1215–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hennessy S, Kurichi JE, Pan Q, Streim JE, Bogner HR, Xie D, Stineman MG. Disability stage is an independent risk factor for mortality in medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. PM R. 2015;7(12):1215–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Stineman MG, Xie D, Pan Q, Kurichi JE, Zhang Z, Saliba D, Henry-Sanchez JT, Streim J. All-cause 1-, 5-, and 10-year mortality in elderly people according to activities of daily living stage. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(3):485–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stineman MG, Xie D, Pan Q, Kurichi JE, Zhang Z, Saliba D, Henry-Sanchez JT, Streim J. All-cause 1-, 5-, and 10-year mortality in elderly people according to activities of daily living stage. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(3):485–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Roos LL, Walld R, Uhanova J, Bond R. Physician visits, hospitalizations, and socioeconomic status: ambulatory care sensitive conditions in a Canadian setting. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):1167–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Roos LL, Walld R, Uhanova J, Bond R. Physician visits, hospitalizations, and socioeconomic status: ambulatory care sensitive conditions in a Canadian setting. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):1167–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Laditka JN. Hazards of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among older women: evidence of greater risks for African Americans and Hispanics. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60(4):468–95. discussion 496–508.CrossRefPubMed Laditka JN. Hazards of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions among older women: evidence of greater risks for African Americans and Hispanics. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60(4):468–95. discussion 496–508.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Laditka JN, Laditka SB, Probst JC. Health care access in rural areas: evidence that hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in the United States may increase with the level of rurality. Health Place. 2009;15(3):731–40.CrossRefPubMed Laditka JN, Laditka SB, Probst JC. Health care access in rural areas: evidence that hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in the United States may increase with the level of rurality. Health Place. 2009;15(3):731–40.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Asch SM, Sloss EM, Hogan C, Brook RH, Kravitz RL. Measuring underuse of necessary care among elderly medicare beneficiaries using inpatient and outpatient claims. JAMA. 2000;284(18):2325–33.CrossRefPubMed Asch SM, Sloss EM, Hogan C, Brook RH, Kravitz RL. Measuring underuse of necessary care among elderly medicare beneficiaries using inpatient and outpatient claims. JAMA. 2000;284(18):2325–33.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Laditka JN, Laditka SB, Probst JC. More may be better: evidence of a negative relationship between physician supply and hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):1148–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Laditka JN, Laditka SB, Probst JC. More may be better: evidence of a negative relationship between physician supply and hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(4):1148–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold MR, Clancy CM. Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. JAMA. 2000;283(19):2579–84.CrossRefPubMed Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold MR, Clancy CM. Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. JAMA. 2000;283(19):2579–84.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Chan L, Ciol MA, Shumway-Cook A, Yorkston KM, Dudgeon BJ, Asch SM, Hoffman JM. A longitudinal evaluation of persons with disabilities: does a longitudinal definition help define who receives necessary care? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1023–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan L, Ciol MA, Shumway-Cook A, Yorkston KM, Dudgeon BJ, Asch SM, Hoffman JM. A longitudinal evaluation of persons with disabilities: does a longitudinal definition help define who receives necessary care? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1023–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Chan L, Doctor JN, MacLehose RF, Lawson H, Rosenblatt RA, Baldwin LM, Jha A. Do medicare patients with disabilities receive preventive services? a population-based study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(6):642–6.CrossRefPubMed Chan L, Doctor JN, MacLehose RF, Lawson H, Rosenblatt RA, Baldwin LM, Jha A. Do medicare patients with disabilities receive preventive services? a population-based study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(6):642–6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Higashi T, Wenger NS, Adams JL, Fung C, Roland M, McGlynn EA, Reeves D, Asch SM, Kerr EA, Shekelle PG. Relationship between number of medical conditions and quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2496–504.CrossRefPubMed Higashi T, Wenger NS, Adams JL, Fung C, Roland M, McGlynn EA, Reeves D, Asch SM, Kerr EA, Shekelle PG. Relationship between number of medical conditions and quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2496–504.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Asch SM, Kerr EA, Keesey J, Adams JL, Setodji CM, Malik S, McGlynn EA. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care? N Engl J Med. 2006;354(11):1147–56.CrossRefPubMed Asch SM, Kerr EA, Keesey J, Adams JL, Setodji CM, Malik S, McGlynn EA. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care? N Engl J Med. 2006;354(11):1147–56.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Kautter J, Khatutsky G, Pope GC, Chromy JR, Adler GS. Impact of nonresponse on medicare current beneficiary survey estimates. Health Care Financ Rev. 2006;27(4):71–93.PubMedPubMedCentral Kautter J, Khatutsky G, Pope GC, Chromy JR, Adler GS. Impact of nonresponse on medicare current beneficiary survey estimates. Health Care Financ Rev. 2006;27(4):71–93.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Stineman MG, Streim JE, Pan Q, Kurichi JE, Schussler-Fiorenza Rose SM, Xie D. Activity limitation stages empirically derived for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and instrumental ADL in the U.S. adult community-dwelling medicare population. PM R. 2014;6(11):976–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stineman MG, Streim JE, Pan Q, Kurichi JE, Schussler-Fiorenza Rose SM, Xie D. Activity limitation stages empirically derived for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and instrumental ADL in the U.S. adult community-dwelling medicare population. PM R. 2014;6(11):976–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Kurichi JE, Streim JE, Bogner HR, Xie D, Kwong PL, Hennessy S. Comparison of predictive value of activity limitation staging systems based on dichotomous versus trichotomous responses in the medicare current beneficiary survey. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(1):64–73.CrossRefPubMed Kurichi JE, Streim JE, Bogner HR, Xie D, Kwong PL, Hennessy S. Comparison of predictive value of activity limitation staging systems based on dichotomous versus trichotomous responses in the medicare current beneficiary survey. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(1):64–73.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis MH, O’Brien E. Profile of persons with disabilities in medicare and medicaid. Health Care Financ Rev. 1996;17(4):179–211.PubMedPubMedCentral Davis MH, O’Brien E. Profile of persons with disabilities in medicare and medicaid. Health Care Financ Rev. 1996;17(4):179–211.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Kizer KW. The emerging imperative for health care quality improvement. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1078–84.CrossRefPubMed Kizer KW. The emerging imperative for health care quality improvement. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1078–84.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Daaleman TP. Reorganizing medicare for older adults with chronic illness. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19(3):303–9.CrossRefPubMed Daaleman TP. Reorganizing medicare for older adults with chronic illness. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19(3):303–9.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Min LC, Elliott MN, Wenger NS, Saliba D. Higher vulnerable elders survey scores predict death and functional decline in vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):507–11.CrossRefPubMed Min LC, Elliott MN, Wenger NS, Saliba D. Higher vulnerable elders survey scores predict death and functional decline in vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(3):507–11.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Geiger HJ, Betancourt JR, Williams DR. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care? N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2617–9.CrossRefPubMed Geiger HJ, Betancourt JR, Williams DR. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care? N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2617–9.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zurück zum Zitat McBean AM, Gornick M. Differences by race in the rates of procedures performed in hospitals for medicare beneficiaries. Health Care Financ Rev. 1994;15(4):77–90.PubMedPubMedCentral McBean AM, Gornick M. Differences by race in the rates of procedures performed in hospitals for medicare beneficiaries. Health Care Financ Rev. 1994;15(4):77–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams DR, Rucker TD. Understanding and addressing racial disparities in health care. Health Care Financ Rev. 2000;21(4):75–90.PubMedPubMedCentral Williams DR, Rucker TD. Understanding and addressing racial disparities in health care. Health Care Financ Rev. 2000;21(4):75–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Betancourt JR, Green AR, Carrillo JE, Ananeh-Firempong 2nd O. Defining cultural competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(4):293–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Betancourt JR, Green AR, Carrillo JE, Ananeh-Firempong 2nd O. Defining cultural competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and health care. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(4):293–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Hahn RA, Teutsch SM, Franks AL, Chang MH, Lloyd EE. The prevalence of risk factors among women in the United States by race and age, 1992–1994: opportunities for primary and secondary prevention. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1998;53(2):96–104. 107. Hahn RA, Teutsch SM, Franks AL, Chang MH, Lloyd EE. The prevalence of risk factors among women in the United States by race and age, 1992–1994: opportunities for primary and secondary prevention. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1998;53(2):96–104. 107.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Stearns SC, Slifkin RT, Edin HM. Access to care for rural medicare beneficiaries. J Rural Health. 2000;16(1):31–42.CrossRefPubMed Stearns SC, Slifkin RT, Edin HM. Access to care for rural medicare beneficiaries. J Rural Health. 2000;16(1):31–42.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Casey MM, Thiede Call K, Klingner JM. Are rural residents less likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services? Am J Prev Med. 2001;21(3):182–8.CrossRefPubMed Casey MM, Thiede Call K, Klingner JM. Are rural residents less likely to obtain recommended preventive healthcare services? Am J Prev Med. 2001;21(3):182–8.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Andrulis DP. Access to care is the centerpiece in the elimination of socioeconomic disparities in health. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(5):412–6.CrossRefPubMed Andrulis DP. Access to care is the centerpiece in the elimination of socioeconomic disparities in health. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(5):412–6.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Dansky KH, Brannon D, Shea DG, Vasey J, Dirani R. Profiles of hospital, physician, and home health service use by older persons in rural areas. Gerontologist. 1998;38(3):320–30.CrossRefPubMed Dansky KH, Brannon D, Shea DG, Vasey J, Dirani R. Profiles of hospital, physician, and home health service use by older persons in rural areas. Gerontologist. 1998;38(3):320–30.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Iezzoni LI. Eliminating health and health care disparities among the growing population of people with disabilities. Health Aff. 2011;30(10):1947–54.CrossRef Iezzoni LI. Eliminating health and health care disparities among the growing population of people with disabilities. Health Aff. 2011;30(10):1947–54.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Environmental barriers to health care among persons with disabilities--Los Angeles County, California, 2002–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(48):1300–3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Environmental barriers to health care among persons with disabilities--Los Angeles County, California, 2002–2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(48):1300–3.
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Gill TM, Allore HG, Gahbauer EA, Murphy TE. Change in disability after hospitalization or restricted activity in older persons. JAMA. 2010;304(17):1919–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gill TM, Allore HG, Gahbauer EA, Murphy TE. Change in disability after hospitalization or restricted activity in older persons. JAMA. 2010;304(17):1919–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Sudore RL, Mehta KM, Simonsick EM, Harris TB, Newman AB, Satterfield S, Rosano C, Rooks RN, Rubin SM, Ayonayon HN, Yaffe K. Limited literacy in older people and disparities in health and healthcare access. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):770–6.CrossRefPubMed Sudore RL, Mehta KM, Simonsick EM, Harris TB, Newman AB, Satterfield S, Rosano C, Rooks RN, Rubin SM, Ayonayon HN, Yaffe K. Limited literacy in older people and disparities in health and healthcare access. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):770–6.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Morgan RO, Teal CR, Hasche JC, Petersen LA, Byrne MM, Paterniti DA, Virnig BA. Does poorer familiarity with Medicare translate into worse access to health care? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(11):2053–60.CrossRefPubMed Morgan RO, Teal CR, Hasche JC, Petersen LA, Byrne MM, Paterniti DA, Virnig BA. Does poorer familiarity with Medicare translate into worse access to health care? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(11):2053–60.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Bjorkenstam E, Ljung R, Burstrom B, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Hallqvist J, Weitoft GR. Quality of medical care and excess mortality in psychiatric patients--a nationwide register-based study in Sweden. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000778.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bjorkenstam E, Ljung R, Burstrom B, Mittendorfer-Rutz E, Hallqvist J, Weitoft GR. Quality of medical care and excess mortality in psychiatric patients--a nationwide register-based study in Sweden. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000778.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Disparities in receipt of recommended care among younger versus older medicare beneficiaries: a cohort study
verfasst von
Ling Na
Joel E. Streim
Liliana E. Pezzin
Jibby E. Kurichi
Dawei Xie
Hillary R. Bogner
Pui L. Kwong
Steven M. Asch
Sean Hennessy
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2017
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Health Services Research / Ausgabe 1/2017
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2168-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe