Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences
Purpose: To examine the impact of an experimental consumer-choice voucher benefit on the selection of independent and agency personal assistance services (PAS) providers among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities. Methods: The Medicare Primary and Consumer-Directed Care Demonstra...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of rural health 2010, Vol.26 (4), p.392-401 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 401 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 392 |
container_title | The Journal of rural health |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Meng, Hongdao Friedman, Bruce Wamsley, Brenda R Van Nostrand, Joan F Eggert, Gerald M |
description | Purpose: To examine the impact of an experimental consumer-choice voucher benefit on the selection of independent and agency personal assistance services (PAS) providers among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities. Methods: The Medicare Primary and Consumer-Directed Care Demonstration enrolled 1,605 Medicare beneficiaries in 19 counties in New York State, West Virginia, and Ohio. A total of 839 participants were randomly assigned to receive a voucher benefit (up to $250 per month with a 20% copayment) that could be used toward PAS provided by either independent or agency workers. A bivariate probit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing either type of PAS provider while controlling for potential confounders. Findings: The voucher was associated with a 32.4% (P < .01) increase in the probability of choosing agency providers and a 12.5% (P= .03) increase in the likelihood of choosing independent workers. When the analysis was stratified by rural/urban status, rural voucher recipients had 36.8% higher probability of using independent workers compared to rural controls. Urban voucher recipients had 37.1% higher probability of using agency providers compared to urban controls. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities may have very different responses to a consumer-choice PAS voucher program. Offering a consumer-choice voucher option to rural populations holds the potential to significantly improve their access to PAS. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00310.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_772257945</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ899999</ericid><sourcerecordid>772257945</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4330-e31151471065d4f2974505b5263e1050aac02de4dca1113fa9557f2e3b120c283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1z0zAQhjUMHRoK_4AB3Tg51adlM1xK-kVpSqYlQ28aWV4XpY5dpLhNfgD_GxmHXLsHaWffZ3dn9kUIUzKmMQ4XY6pElhCe0jEjsUoIj-_6BRrthJdoRLKcJCqVt_vodQgLQliecfEK7TMaU6rkCP2Z_GqdBdxWeAY-tI2p8VEILqxME8s34B-jHPDMt4-ujAQuNngKpbPGA_4CDVTOOuNdZObBNXfY4EnbhG4JPjl2HuwKyi23-oSvO2_qZO4L0-BjV1XgIa4Jb9BeZeoAb7f_AZqfnvyYnCeX38--To4uEys4JwlwSiUVipJUlqJiuRKSyEKylAMlkhhjCStBlNbEK_HK5FKqigEvKCOWZfwAfRzmPvj2dwdhpZcuWKhr00DbBa0UY1LlQj5PpizNpJAqku-3ZFcsodQP3i2N3-j_N47AuwEA7-xOPrnI8j6i_HmQn1wNm51Oie6t1gvdO6p7R3Vvtf5ntV7ri-vzmMT2ZGiPlsF61278vU4VV1L_vDrT02-zW5bOpJ5G_sPAV6bV5s67oOc3cTAnNMsVSwX_C9dSsuI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>762685457</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Meng, Hongdao ; Friedman, Bruce ; Wamsley, Brenda R ; Van Nostrand, Joan F ; Eggert, Gerald M</creator><creatorcontrib>Meng, Hongdao ; Friedman, Bruce ; Wamsley, Brenda R ; Van Nostrand, Joan F ; Eggert, Gerald M</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To examine the impact of an experimental consumer-choice voucher benefit on the selection of independent and agency personal assistance services (PAS) providers among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities. Methods: The Medicare Primary and Consumer-Directed Care Demonstration enrolled 1,605 Medicare beneficiaries in 19 counties in New York State, West Virginia, and Ohio. A total of 839 participants were randomly assigned to receive a voucher benefit (up to $250 per month with a 20% copayment) that could be used toward PAS provided by either independent or agency workers. A bivariate probit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing either type of PAS provider while controlling for potential confounders. Findings: The voucher was associated with a 32.4% (P < .01) increase in the probability of choosing agency providers and a 12.5% (P= .03) increase in the likelihood of choosing independent workers. When the analysis was stratified by rural/urban status, rural voucher recipients had 36.8% higher probability of using independent workers compared to rural controls. Urban voucher recipients had 37.1% higher probability of using agency providers compared to urban controls. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities may have very different responses to a consumer-choice PAS voucher program. Offering a consumer-choice voucher option to rural populations holds the potential to significantly improve their access to PAS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-765X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-0361</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00310.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21029175</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JRHEEX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Access to Health Care ; Aged ; Agencies ; Beneficiaries ; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.) ; Consumer Behavior - economics ; Consumer Behavior - statistics & numerical data ; consumer choice ; consumer direction ; Consumer Economics ; Counties ; Delivery of Health Care - economics ; Delivery of Health Care - organization & administration ; Demonstration Programs ; Demonstrations ; Disabilities ; Experimental Programs ; Federal Programs ; Female ; Health Insurance ; Health Promotion ; Health Status Disparities ; Health Status Indicators ; Home Health Aides ; Humans ; independent provider ; Male ; Medically Underserved Area ; Medicare ; Medicare - economics ; Medicare - statistics & numerical data ; Multivariate Analysis ; New York ; Ohio ; personal assistance services ; Probability ; Program Effectiveness ; Program Implementation ; rural ; Rural communities ; Rural Health Services - economics ; Rural Health Services - statistics & numerical data ; Rural Population - statistics & numerical data ; Rural Urban Differences ; Temporary employees ; United States ; Urban Health Services - economics ; Urban Health Services - statistics & numerical data ; Urban Population - statistics & numerical data ; Vendors ; West Virginia]]></subject><ispartof>The Journal of rural health, 2010, Vol.26 (4), p.392-401</ispartof><rights>2010 National Rural Health Association</rights><rights>2010 National Rural Health Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4330-e31151471065d4f2974505b5263e1050aac02de4dca1113fa9557f2e3b120c283</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1748-0361.2010.00310.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1748-0361.2010.00310.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,31000,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ899999$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21029175$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meng, Hongdao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedman, Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wamsley, Brenda R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Nostrand, Joan F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggert, Gerald M</creatorcontrib><title>Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences</title><title>The Journal of rural health</title><addtitle>J Rural Health</addtitle><description>Purpose: To examine the impact of an experimental consumer-choice voucher benefit on the selection of independent and agency personal assistance services (PAS) providers among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities. Methods: The Medicare Primary and Consumer-Directed Care Demonstration enrolled 1,605 Medicare beneficiaries in 19 counties in New York State, West Virginia, and Ohio. A total of 839 participants were randomly assigned to receive a voucher benefit (up to $250 per month with a 20% copayment) that could be used toward PAS provided by either independent or agency workers. A bivariate probit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing either type of PAS provider while controlling for potential confounders. Findings: The voucher was associated with a 32.4% (P < .01) increase in the probability of choosing agency providers and a 12.5% (P= .03) increase in the likelihood of choosing independent workers. When the analysis was stratified by rural/urban status, rural voucher recipients had 36.8% higher probability of using independent workers compared to rural controls. Urban voucher recipients had 37.1% higher probability of using agency providers compared to urban controls. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities may have very different responses to a consumer-choice PAS voucher program. Offering a consumer-choice voucher option to rural populations holds the potential to significantly improve their access to PAS.</description><subject>Access to Health Care</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Agencies</subject><subject>Beneficiaries</subject><subject>Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior - economics</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>consumer choice</subject><subject>consumer direction</subject><subject>Consumer Economics</subject><subject>Counties</subject><subject>Delivery of Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Delivery of Health Care - organization & administration</subject><subject>Demonstration Programs</subject><subject>Demonstrations</subject><subject>Disabilities</subject><subject>Experimental Programs</subject><subject>Federal Programs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Insurance</subject><subject>Health Promotion</subject><subject>Health Status Disparities</subject><subject>Health Status Indicators</subject><subject>Home Health Aides</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>independent provider</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medically Underserved Area</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Medicare - economics</subject><subject>Medicare - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>New York</subject><subject>Ohio</subject><subject>personal assistance services</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Program Effectiveness</subject><subject>Program Implementation</subject><subject>rural</subject><subject>Rural communities</subject><subject>Rural Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Rural Health Services - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Rural Population - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Rural Urban Differences</subject><subject>Temporary employees</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Urban Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Urban Health Services - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Urban Population - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Vendors</subject><subject>West Virginia</subject><issn>0890-765X</issn><issn>1748-0361</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1z0zAQhjUMHRoK_4AB3Tg51adlM1xK-kVpSqYlQ28aWV4XpY5dpLhNfgD_GxmHXLsHaWffZ3dn9kUIUzKmMQ4XY6pElhCe0jEjsUoIj-_6BRrthJdoRLKcJCqVt_vodQgLQliecfEK7TMaU6rkCP2Z_GqdBdxWeAY-tI2p8VEILqxME8s34B-jHPDMt4-ujAQuNngKpbPGA_4CDVTOOuNdZObBNXfY4EnbhG4JPjl2HuwKyi23-oSvO2_qZO4L0-BjV1XgIa4Jb9BeZeoAb7f_AZqfnvyYnCeX38--To4uEys4JwlwSiUVipJUlqJiuRKSyEKylAMlkhhjCStBlNbEK_HK5FKqigEvKCOWZfwAfRzmPvj2dwdhpZcuWKhr00DbBa0UY1LlQj5PpizNpJAqku-3ZFcsodQP3i2N3-j_N47AuwEA7-xOPrnI8j6i_HmQn1wNm51Oie6t1gvdO6p7R3Vvtf5ntV7ri-vzmMT2ZGiPlsF61278vU4VV1L_vDrT02-zW5bOpJ5G_sPAV6bV5s67oOc3cTAnNMsVSwX_C9dSsuI</recordid><startdate>2010</startdate><enddate>2010</enddate><creator>Meng, Hongdao</creator><creator>Friedman, Bruce</creator><creator>Wamsley, Brenda R</creator><creator>Van Nostrand, Joan F</creator><creator>Eggert, Gerald M</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2010</creationdate><title>Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences</title><author>Meng, Hongdao ; Friedman, Bruce ; Wamsley, Brenda R ; Van Nostrand, Joan F ; Eggert, Gerald M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4330-e31151471065d4f2974505b5263e1050aac02de4dca1113fa9557f2e3b120c283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Access to Health Care</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Agencies</topic><topic>Beneficiaries</topic><topic>Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior - economics</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>consumer choice</topic><topic>consumer direction</topic><topic>Consumer Economics</topic><topic>Counties</topic><topic>Delivery of Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Delivery of Health Care - organization & administration</topic><topic>Demonstration Programs</topic><topic>Demonstrations</topic><topic>Disabilities</topic><topic>Experimental Programs</topic><topic>Federal Programs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Insurance</topic><topic>Health Promotion</topic><topic>Health Status Disparities</topic><topic>Health Status Indicators</topic><topic>Home Health Aides</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>independent provider</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medically Underserved Area</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Medicare - economics</topic><topic>Medicare - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>New York</topic><topic>Ohio</topic><topic>personal assistance services</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Program Effectiveness</topic><topic>Program Implementation</topic><topic>rural</topic><topic>Rural communities</topic><topic>Rural Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Rural Health Services - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Rural Population - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Rural Urban Differences</topic><topic>Temporary employees</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Urban Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Urban Health Services - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Urban Population - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Vendors</topic><topic>West Virginia</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meng, Hongdao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedman, Bruce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wamsley, Brenda R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Nostrand, Joan F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggert, Gerald M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of rural health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meng, Hongdao</au><au>Friedman, Bruce</au><au>Wamsley, Brenda R</au><au>Van Nostrand, Joan F</au><au>Eggert, Gerald M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ899999</ericid><atitle>Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of rural health</jtitle><addtitle>J Rural Health</addtitle><date>2010</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>392</spage><epage>401</epage><pages>392-401</pages><issn>0890-765X</issn><eissn>1748-0361</eissn><coden>JRHEEX</coden><abstract>Purpose: To examine the impact of an experimental consumer-choice voucher benefit on the selection of independent and agency personal assistance services (PAS) providers among rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities. Methods: The Medicare Primary and Consumer-Directed Care Demonstration enrolled 1,605 Medicare beneficiaries in 19 counties in New York State, West Virginia, and Ohio. A total of 839 participants were randomly assigned to receive a voucher benefit (up to $250 per month with a 20% copayment) that could be used toward PAS provided by either independent or agency workers. A bivariate probit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing either type of PAS provider while controlling for potential confounders. Findings: The voucher was associated with a 32.4% (P < .01) increase in the probability of choosing agency providers and a 12.5% (P= .03) increase in the likelihood of choosing independent workers. When the analysis was stratified by rural/urban status, rural voucher recipients had 36.8% higher probability of using independent workers compared to rural controls. Urban voucher recipients had 37.1% higher probability of using agency providers compared to urban controls. Conclusions: This study provided evidence that rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities may have very different responses to a consumer-choice PAS voucher program. Offering a consumer-choice voucher option to rural populations holds the potential to significantly improve their access to PAS.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>21029175</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00310.x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0890-765X |
ispartof | The Journal of rural health, 2010, Vol.26 (4), p.392-401 |
issn | 0890-765X 1748-0361 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_772257945 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Access to Health Care Aged Agencies Beneficiaries Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.) Consumer Behavior - economics Consumer Behavior - statistics & numerical data consumer choice consumer direction Consumer Economics Counties Delivery of Health Care - economics Delivery of Health Care - organization & administration Demonstration Programs Demonstrations Disabilities Experimental Programs Federal Programs Female Health Insurance Health Promotion Health Status Disparities Health Status Indicators Home Health Aides Humans independent provider Male Medically Underserved Area Medicare Medicare - economics Medicare - statistics & numerical data Multivariate Analysis New York Ohio personal assistance services Probability Program Effectiveness Program Implementation rural Rural communities Rural Health Services - economics Rural Health Services - statistics & numerical data Rural Population - statistics & numerical data Rural Urban Differences Temporary employees United States Urban Health Services - economics Urban Health Services - statistics & numerical data Urban Population - statistics & numerical data Vendors West Virginia |
title | Choice of Personal Assistance Services Providers by Medicare Beneficiaries Using a Consumer-Directed Benefit: Rural-Urban Differences |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T21%3A11%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Choice%20of%20Personal%20Assistance%20Services%20Providers%20by%20Medicare%20Beneficiaries%20Using%20a%20Consumer-Directed%20Benefit:%20Rural-Urban%20Differences&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20rural%20health&rft.au=Meng,%20Hongdao&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=392&rft.epage=401&rft.pages=392-401&rft.issn=0890-765X&rft.eissn=1748-0361&rft.coden=JRHEEX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00310.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E772257945%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=762685457&rft_id=info:pmid/21029175&rft_ericid=EJ899999&rfr_iscdi=true |