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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of rural health 2010, Vol.26 (4), p.392-401
Hauptverfasser: Meng, Hongdao, Friedman, Bruce, Wamsley, Brenda R, Van Nostrand, Joan F, Eggert, Gerald M
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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Rural Population - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Urban Population - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Rural Population - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Urban Population - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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