NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT 2011 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Advancing Excellence in Health Care • www.ahrq.gov NATIONAL HEALTHCARE QUALITY REPORT 2011 U.S Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 AHRQ Publication No 12-0005 March 2012 www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr11.htm Acknowledgments The NHQR and NHDR are the products of collaboration among agencies across the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Many individuals guided and contributed to this report Without their magnanimous support, this report would not have been possible Specifically, we thank: Primary AHRQ Staff: Carolyn Clancy, William Munier, Katherine Crosson, Ernest Moy, Karen HoChaves, William Freeman, and Doreen Bonnett HHS Interagency Workgroup for the NHQR/NHDR: Girma Alemu (HRSA), Hakan Aykan (ASPE), Rachel Ballard-Barbash (NCI), Magda Barini-Garcia (HRSA), Kirsten Beronio (ASPE), Douglas Boenning (ASPE), Julia Bryan (HRSA), Steven Clauser (NCI), Rachel Clement (HRSA), Martin Dannenfelser (ACF), Agnes Davidson (OPHS), Brenda Evelyn (FDA), Susan Fleck (CMS/NC), Edward Garcia (CMS), Miryam Gerdine (HRSA), Olinda Gonzalez (SAMHSA), Tanya Grandison (HRSA), Saadia Greenberg (AoA), Kirk Greenway (IHS), Lein Han (CMS), Linda Harlan (NCI), Rebecca Hines (CDC/NCHS), Edwin Huff (CMS/OA), Meghan Hufstader (ONC), Deloris Hunter (NIH), Memuna Ifedirah (CMS/OCSQ), Kenneth Johnson (OCR), Ruta Kadonoff (ASPE), Ruth Katz (ASPE), Richard Klein (CDC/NCHS), Lisa Koonin (CDC/NCHS), Helen Lamont (ASPE), Shari Ling (CMS/OCSQ), Leopold Luberecki (ASPE), Diane Makuc (CDC/NCHS), Richard McNaney (CMS), Diane Meier (ASPE), Nancy Miller (NIH), Carmen Moten (NIH/NIMH), Iran Naqvi (ORH), Leo Nolan (IHS), Cynthia Ogden (CDC/NCHS), Karen Oliver (NIH/NIMH), Lisa Patton (ASPE), Diane Pilkey (ASPE), Susan Polniaszek (ASPE), Suzanne Proctor-Hallquist (CDC/NCHS), Barry Portnoy (NIH/OD), Michael Rapp (CMS), Georgetta Robinson (CMS), William Rodriguez (FDA/OD), Rochelle Rollins (OMH), Asel Ryskulova (CDC/NCHS), Michael Schoenbaum (NIMH), Adelle Simmons (ASPE), Alan E Simon (CDC/NCHS), Sunil Sinha (CMS), Jane Sisk (CDC/NCHS), Phillip Smith (IHS), Nancy Sonnenfeld (CDC/NCHS), Caroline Taplin (HHS-ASPE), Emmanuel Taylor (NCI), Wilma Tilson (ASPE), Karmen Todd (OCR), Benedict Truman (CDC), Sayeedha Uddin (CDC/NCHS), Nadarajen A Vydelingum (NIH), Barbara Wells (NHLBI), Valerie Welsh (OPHS/OMH), Deborah Willis-Fillinger (HRSA), Lee Wilson (ASPE/OS), Susan Yanovski (NIH/NIDDK), and Pierre Yong (ASPE) AHRQ NHQR/NHDR Team: Roxanne Andrews (CDOM), Barbara Barton (SSS), Doreen Bonnett (OCKT), Jeffrey Brady (CQuIPS), Eva Chang (CQuIPS), Xiuhua Chen (SSS), Fran Chevarley (CFACT), Cecilia Rivera Casale (OEREP), Karen Ho Chaves (CQuIPS), Beth Collins Sharp (OEREP), Katherine Crosson (CQuIPS), Denise Dougherty (OEREP), William Freeman (CQuIPS), Erin Grace (CP3), Darryl Gray (CQuIPS), Padmini Jagadish (OEREP), Heather Johnson-Skrivanek (CP3), Ram Khadka (SSS), Shyam Misra (OEREP), Atlang Mompe (SSS), Ernest Moy (CQuIPS), William Munier (CQuIPS), Ryan Mutter (CDOM), Janet Pagán-Sutton (SSS), Amir Razi (SSS), Judy Sangl (CQuIPS), Nancy Wilson (IOD), and Marc Zodet (CFACT) HHS Data Experts: Barbara Altman (CDC/NCHS), Anjani Chandra (CDC/NCHS), Steven Cohen (AHRQ), James Colliver (SAMHSA), Paul Eggers (NIH), David Keer (ED/OSERS), William Mosher (CDC/NCHS), Cynthia Ogden (CDC/NCHS), Robin Remsburg (CDC/NCHS), Asel Ryskulova (CDC/NCHS), Alan E Simon (CDC/NCHS), Jane Sisk (CDC/NCHS), and members of the Interagency Subcommittee on Disability Statistics Other Data Experts: Dale Bratzler (Oklahoma QIO), Michael Halpern (NCDB, American Cancer Society), Allen Ma (Oklahoma QIO), Lauren Miller (Oklahoma QIO), Wato Nsa (Oklahoma QIO), Bryan Palis (American College of Surgeons), Florentina R Salvail (Hawaii Department of Health), Allison Petrilla (NHCPO), Hardy Spoehr (Papa Ola Lokahi), Andrew Stewart (NCDB, American College of Surgeons), Jo Ann Tsark (Papa Ola Lokahi), and Claudia Wright (Oklahoma QIO) Other AHRQ Contributors: Cindy Brach, Karen Fleming-Michael, Christine Heidenrich, Biff LeVee, Corey Mackison, Gerri Michael-Dyer, Karen Migdail, Linwood Norman, Pamela Owens, Mamatha Pancholi, Larry Patton, Wendy Perry, Mary Rolston, Scott Rowe, Bruce Seeman, Randie Siegel, and Phyllis Zucker Data Support Contractors: CHD-Fu, Social and Scientific Systems, Thomson Reuters Healthcare, and Westat National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Contents Chapter Page Highlights 1 Introduction and Methods 35 Effectiveness of Care 49 Cancer 50 Cardiovascular Disease 58 Chronic Kidney Disease 64 Diabetes 69 HIV and AIDS 74 Maternal and Child Health 81 Mental Health and Substance Abuse 91 Musculoskeletal Diseases 98 Respiratory Diseases 103 Lifestyle Modification 108 Functional Status Preservation and Rehabilitation 117 Supportive and Palliative Care 123 Patient Safety 137 Timeliness 153 Patient Centeredness 161 Care Coordination 171 Efficiency 183 Health System Infrastructure 195 Access to Health Care 211 Appendixes: Data Sources www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr11/datasources/index.html Detailed Methods www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr11/methods/index.html Measure Specifications www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr11/measurespec/index.html Data Tables www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr11/index.html National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Highlights From the 2011 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports The U.S health care system seeks to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease and to improve the physical and mental well-being of all Americans Across the lifespan, health care helps people stay healthy, recover from illness, live with chronic disease or disability, and cope with death and dying Quality health care delivers these services in ways that are safe, timely, patient centered, efficient, and equitable Unfortunately, Americans too often not receive care that they need, or they receive care that causes harm Care can be delivered too late or without full consideration of a patient’s preferences and values Many times, our system of health care distributes services inefficiently and unevenly across populations Some Americans receive worse care than other Americans These disparities may be due to differences in access to care, provider biases, poor provider-patient communication, or poor health literacy Each year since 2003, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has reported on progress and opportunities for improving health care quality and reducing health care disparities As mandated by the U.S Congress, the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) focuses on “national trends in the quality of health care provided to the American people” (42 U.S.C 299b-2(b)(2)) while the National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR) focuses on “prevailing disparities in health care delivery as it relates to racial factors and socioeconomic factors in priority populations” (42 U.S.C 299a-1(a)(6)) As in 2010, we have integrated findings from the 2011 NHQR and NHDR to produce a single summary chapter This is intended to reinforce the need to consider simultaneously the quality of health care and disparities across populations when assessing our health care system The National Healthcare Reports Highlights seeks to address three questions critical to guiding Americans toward the optimal health care they need and deserve: n What is the status of health care quality and disparities in the United States? have health care quality and disparities changed over time?i n Where is the need to improve health care quality and reduce disparities greatest? n How Table H.1 National Quality Strategy priorities and location in NHQR and NHDR National Priority Area Making Care Safer Patient Safety Ensuring Person- and Family-Centered Care Patient Centeredness Promoting Effective Communication and Care Coordination Care Coordination Promoting Effective Prevention and Treatment of Leading Causes of Mortality, Starting With Cardiovascular Disease Effectiveness (Cardiovascular Disease section) Working With Communities To Promote Wide Use of Best Practices To Enable Healthy Living Effectiveness (Lifestyle Modification section) Making Quality Care More Affordable i NHQR/NHDR Chapter Access to Health Care, Efficiency Data years vary across measures For most measures, trends include data points from 2001-2002 to 2007-2008 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Highlights New this year, the Highlights focus on national priorities identified in the HHS National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy or NQS) and HHS Action Plan To Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Disparities Action Plan) Published in March 2011, the NQS identified six national priorities for quality improvement These priorities were matched with measures in the NHQR/NHDR, and assessments of quality and disparities related to each priority are included in the Highlights (Table H.1) The Highlights also discuss health care strategies identified in the Disparities Action Plan that was released in April 2011 Consistent with past reports, the 2011 reports emphasize one of AHRQ’s priority populations as a theme and present expanded analyses of care received by older Americans Finally, this document presents novel strategies from AHRQ’s Health Care Innovations Exchange (HCIE), as well as examples of Federal and State initiatives for improving quality and reducing disparities Four themes from the 2011 NHQR and NHDR emphasize the need to accelerate progress if the Nation is to achieve higher quality and more equitable health care in the near future: n Health care quality and access are suboptimal, especially for minority and low-income groups n Quality is improving; access and disparities are not improving n Urgent attention is warranted to ensure continued improvements in quality and progress on reducing disparities with respect to certain services, geographic areas, and populations, including: o Diabetes care and adverse events o Disparities in cancer screening and access to care o States in the South n Progress is uneven with respect to national priorities identified in the HHS National Quality Strategy and the Disparities Action Plan: o Improving in quality: Ensuring Person- and Family-Centered Care and Promoting Effective Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease o Lagging: Making Care Safer, Promoting Healthy Living, and Increasing Data on Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations o Lacking sufficient data to assess: Promoting More Effective Care Coordination and Making Care More Affordable o Disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status present in all priority areas Health Care Quality and Access Are Suboptimal, Especially for Minority and Low-Income Groups A key function of the reports is to summarize the state of health care quality, access, and disparities for the Nation This undertaking is difficult, as no single national health care database collects a comprehensive set of data elements that can produce national and State estimates for all population subgroups each year Rather, data come from more than three dozen databases that provide estimates for different population subgroups and data years While most data are gathered annually, some data are not collected regularly or are old Despite the data limitations, our analyses indicate that health care quality in America is suboptimal The gap between best possible care and that which is routinely delivered remains substantial across the Nation National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Highlights On average, people received the preventive services tracked in the reports 60% of the time, appropriate acute care services 80% of the time, and recommended chronic disease management services 70% of the time Moreover, wide variation was found in receipt of different types of services For instance, 95% of hospital patients with pneumonia received their initial antibiotic dose within hours of hospital arrival but only 9% of patients who needed treatment for an alcohol problem received treatment at a specialty facility Access to care is also far from optimal On average, Americans report barriers to care 20% of the time, ranging from 3% of people saying they were unable to get or had to delay getting prescription medications to 57% of people saying their usual provider did not have office hours on weekends or nights All Americans should have equal access to high-quality care Instead, we find that racial and ethnic minorities and poor people often face more barriers to care and receive poorer quality of care when they can get it In previous years, we assessed disparities using a set of core measures This year, we analyze disparities including all measures in the measure set We observe few differences in results from the core and full measure sets and present findings from the full measure set here For each measure, we examine the relative difference between a selected group and its reference group Differences that are statistically significant, are larger than 10%, and favor the reference group are labeled as indicating poor quality or access for the selected group Differences that are statistically significant, are larger than 10%, and favor the selected group are labeled as indicating better quality or access for the selected group Differences that are not statistically significant or are smaller than 10% are labeled as the same for the selected and reference groups Figure H.1 Number and proportion of all quality measures for which members of selected groups experienced better, same, or worse quality of care compared with reference group Better Worse Same 100 11 26 80 37 36 27 46 67 65 82 60 Percent 74 11 40 46 24 20 67 74 31 38 ) 62 n= 4( 8-4 65 s +v c Bla hit W s kv hit /AN AI 8) 14 n= e( W s nv ia As 2) 18 n= e( hit W vs HW N s cv i an p His 7) 10 n= e( or Po 1) 17 (n= o nc hI ig H ) 98 n= ( me Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHW = nonHispanic White; n = number of measures Better = Population received better quality of care than reference group Same = Population and reference group received about the same quality of care Worse = Population received worse quality of care than reference group vs National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Highlights n Disparities in quality of care are common: o Adults age 65 and over received worse care than adults ages 18-44 for 39% of quality measures o Blacks received worse care than Whites for 41% of quality measures o Asians and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) received worse care than Whites for about 30% of quality measures o Hispanics received worse care than non-Hispanic Whites for 39% of measures o Poor people received worse care than high-income peopleii for 47% of measures Figure H.2 Number and proportion of all access measures for which members of selected groups experienced better, same, or worse access to care compared with reference group Better Worse Same 100 80 60 Percent 40 17 12 20 ) 11 n= 4( 8-4 + 65 vs k lac B n hit W vs A n sia ) n= e( hit W vs N I/A A ) n= e( hit W vs ic an N or Po vs ) 19 HW vs p His ) 13 18 19 n= e( (n= h Hig ) 19 n= ( me Key: AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native; NHW = nonHispanic White; n = number of measures Better = Population had better access to care than reference group Same = Population and reference group had about the same access to care Worse = Population had worse access to care than reference group o Inc Disparities in access are also common, especially among AI/ANs, Hispanics, and poor people: o Adults age 65 and over rarely had worse access to care than adults ages 18-44 o Blacks had worse access to care than Whites for 32% of access measures o Asians had worse access to care than Whites for 17% of access measures o AI/ANs had worse access to care than Whites for 62% of access measures o Hispanics had worse access to care than non-Hispanic Whites for 63% of measures o Poor people had worse access to care than high-income people for 89% of measures ii Throughout the Highlights, poor indicates individuals whose household income is below the Federal poverty level and high income indicates individuals whose household income is at least four times the Federal poverty level National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 210 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Chapter Access to Health Care Many Americans have good access to health care that enables them to benefit fully from the Nation’s health care system Others face barriers that make it difficult to obtain basic health care services As shown by extensive research and confirmed in previous National Healthcare Disparities Reports (NHDRs), racial and ethnic minorities and people of low socioeconomic status (SES)i are disproportionately represented among those with access problems Previous findings from the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) and NHDR showed that health insurance was the most significant contributing factor to poor quality of care for some of the core measures and many are not improving Uninsured people were less likely to get recommended care for disease prevention, such as cancer screening, dental care, counseling about diet and exercise, and flu vaccination They also were less likely to get recommended care for disease management, such as diabetes care management Poor access to health care comes at both a personal and societal cost For example, if people not receive vaccinations, they may become ill and spread disease to others This increases the burden of disease for society overall in addition to the burden borne individually Components of Health Care Access Access to health care means having “the timely use of personal health services to achieve the best health outcomes” (IOM, 1993) Attaining good access to care requires three discrete steps: n Gaining n Getting entry into the health care system access to sites of care where patients can receive needed services n Finding providers who meet the needs of individual patients and with whom patients can develop a relationship based on mutual communication and trust Health care access is measured in several ways, including: n Structural measures of the presence or absence of specific resources that facilitate health care, such as having health insurance or a usual source of care n Assessments by patients of how easily they can gain access to health care n Utilization measures of the ultimate outcome of good access to care (i.e., the successful receipt of needed services) i As described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Methods, income and educational attainment are used to measure SES in the NHDR Unless specified, poor = below the Federal poverty level (FPL), near poor = 100-199% of the FPL, middle income = 200-399% of the FPL, and high income = 400% or more of the FPL The measure specifications and data source descriptions provide more information on income groups by data source National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 211 Access to Health Care Facilitators and Barriers to Health Care Facilitators and barriers to health care discussed in this section include health insurance, usual source of care (including having a usual source of ongoing care and a usual primary care provider), and patient perceptions of need Findings Health Insurance The financial burden of uninsurance is also high for uninsured individuals; almost 50% of personal bankruptcy filings are due to medical expenses (Jacoby, et al., 2000) Uninsured individuals report more problems getting care, are diagnosed at later disease stages, and get less therapeutic care They are sicker when hospitalized and more likely to die during their stay (Hadley & Holahan, 2004) Figure 9.1 People under age 65 with health insurance, by age and gender, 1999-2009 0-17 100 18-44 Male 100 45-64 90 80 Female 80 Percent 90 Percent Chapter Health insurance facilitates entry into the health care system Uninsured people are less likely to receive medical care and more likely to have poor health status The cost of poor health among uninsured people was almost $125 billion in 2004 (Hadley & Holahan, 2004) 70 70 60 60 50 50 Z Z 0 99 000 001 002 003 2004 005 006 007 008 009 2 2 2 2 19 99 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 2 2 2 2 2 19 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1999-2009 Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65 Note: NHIS respondents are asked about health insurance coverage at the time of interview Respondents are considered insured if they have private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a State-sponsored health plan, other government-sponsored health plan, or a military health plan If their only coverage is through the Indian Health Service, they are not considered insured Estimates are not adjusted 212 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Access to Health Care n Overall, there was no statistically significant change from 1999 to 2009 In 2009, 83% of people under age 65 had health insurance (data not shown) n From 1999 to 2009, the percentage of children ages 0-17 who had health insurance increased (from 88% to 92%; Figure 9.1) However, for adults ages 18-44 and 45-64, the percentage decreased (for ages 18-44, from 79% to 74%; and for ages 45-64, from 88% to 85%) n In 2009, adults ages 18-44 and 45-64 were less likely than children ages 0-17 to have health insurance (74% and 85%, respectively, compared with 92%) n From 1999 to 2009, the percentage of males who had health insurance decreased (from 83% to 81%) There was no statistically significant change for females during this period Chapter n Females were more likely to have health insurance than males throughout this period Also, in the NHDR: n In 2009, Blacks under age 65 were less likely than Whites to have health insurance, and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) under age 65 were less likely than Whites to have health insurance n In 2009, Hispanics under age 65 were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have health insurance n The percentage of people with health insurance was significantly lower for poor, low-income, and middle-income people than for high-income people n The percentage of people with health insurance was about one-third lower for people with less than a high school education than for people with any college education Uninsurance n Prolonged periods of uninsurance can have a particularly serious impact on a person’s health and stability Uninsured people often postpone seeking care, have difficulty obtaining care when they ultimately seek it, and may have to bear the full brunt of health care costs Over time, the cumulative consequences of being uninsured compound, resulting in a population at particular risk for suboptimal health care and health status National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 213 Access to Health Care Figure 9.2 People under age 65 who were uninsured all year, by age and gender, 2002-2008 0-17 25 45-64 18-44 25 20 15 15 Percent Chapter Percent 20 Female Male 10 10 5 02 20 04 03 20 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2002-2008 Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65 Note: For this measure, lower rates are better n Overall, from 2002 to 2008, the percentage of people under age 65 who were uninsured all year increased (from 13% to 15%; data not shown) n From 2002 to 2008, children ages 0-17 were least likely to be uninsured all year, while adults ages 18-44 were most likely to be uninsured all year (in 2008, 8% for ages 0-17 and 21% for ages 18-44; Figure 9.2) n From 2002 to 2008, females were less likely to be uninsured all year than males (in 2008, 13% compared with 18%) Also, in the NHDR: n In 2008, AI/ANs were more likely than Whites to be uninsured all year n Hispanics were much more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to be uninsured all year n The percentage of poor people and low-income people who were uninsured all year was about four times as high as that for high-income people, while the percentage of middle-income people uninsured all year was more than twice as high as that for high-income people n From 2002 to 2008, the percentage of people who were uninsured all year was nearly three times as high for people who spoke another language at home as that for people who spoke English at home 214 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Access to Health Care Figure 9.3 People under age 65 who were uninsured all year, California, 2009 50 40 20 10 l nly ell t Al lish nish ese ean her U.S U.S h O y W A Eng Spa nam Kor Ot n In In lis /Ver /Not n r t r g Bo t Bo Vie En Well Well No sh Not gli En glish En n In Source: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Policy Research, California Health Interview Survey, 2009 Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 0-64 in California Note: For this measure, lower rates are better Data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability for Chinese speakers The English proficiency of respondents is characterized by the following categories: English Only, English Well/Very Well, and English Not Well/Not At All 2009, about 12% of people in California were uninsured all year in the past year (data not shown) n People in California who spoke English well or very well were almost twice as likely as those who speak English only to be uninsured all year in the past year (18% compared with 10%; Figure 9.3) People who did not speak English well or did not speak English at all were more than three times as likely as those who speak English only to be uninsured all year in the past year (36% compared with 10%) n People whose preferred language was Spanish were three times as likely as people who preferred English to be uninsured all year in the past year (36% compared with 12%) People whose preferred language was Korean were more than four times as likely as those who preferred English to be uninsured all year in the past year (49% compared with 12%) n In California, people who were not born in the United States were almost three times as likely as people who were born in the United States to be uninsured all year in the past year (23% compared with 9%) Financial Burden of Health Care Costs Health insurance is supposed to protect individuals from the burden of high health care costs However, even with health insurance, the financial burden for health care can still be high and is increasing (Banthin & Bernard, 2006) High premiums and out-of-pocket payments can be a significant barrier to accessing needed medical treatment and preventive care (Alexander, et al., 2003) According to one study, uninsured families can afford to pay for only 12% of hospitalizations that they experience (HHS, 2011) One way to assess the extent of financial burden is to determine the percentage of family income spent on a family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 215 Chapter Percent 30 Access to Health Care Figure 9.4 People under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income, by insurance, gender, age, and activity limitation, 2008 50 40 Percent Chapter 30 20 Key: ESI = employer-sponsored insurance Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2008 Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65 Note: For this measure, lower rates are better Total financial burden includes premiums and out-of-pocket costs for health care services 10 I p y x x 4 c le le ES ou nl Ma ema 0-1 8-4 5-6 asi ple ple B om om te ongr lic O F iva N ub C rC Pr te P no iva sic Pr Ba er ith Ne n Overall, in 2008, about 17% of people under age 65 had health insurance premium and out-ofpocket medical expenses that were more than 10% of total family income (data not shown) n The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was nearly three times as high for individuals with private nongroup insurance as for individuals with private employer-sponsored insurance (49% compared with 17%; Figure 9.4) There was no statistically significant difference between publicly insured individuals and individuals with employer-sponsored insurance n Females were more likely than males to have family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses that were more than 10% of total family income (18% compared with 16%) n Adults ages 45-64 were more likely than people ages 0-17 to have family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses that were more than 10% of total family income n People with activity limitations (both basic activity limitations and complex limitations) were at least twice as likely as people with neither type of activity limitation to have family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses that were more than 10% of total family income Also, in the NHDR: n The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was lower for Blacks compared with Whites and lower for Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites 216 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Access to Health Care n The percentage of people under age 65 whose family’s health insurance premium and out-of-pocket medical expenses were more than 10% of total family income was more than four times as high for poor individuals, more than three times as high for low-income individuals, and more than twice as high for middle-income individuals compared with high-income individuals Usual Source of Care Specific Source of Ongoing Care The term “specific source of ongoing care” accounts for patients who may have more than one source of care, such as women of childbearing age and older people, who tend to have more than one doctor A specific source of ongoing care can include an urgent care/walk-in clinic, doctor’s office, clinic, health center facility, hospital outpatient clinic, health maintenance organization/preferred provider organization, military or other Veterans Affairs health care facility, or some other similar source of care (however, hospital emergency rooms are excluded) Figure 9.5 People with a specific source of ongoing care, by age and gender, 1999-2009 0-17 18-44 100 45-64 65+ 100 90 80 Female 80 Percent Percent 90 Male 70 70 60 60 50 50 Z 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Z 99 00 01 02 003 2004 005 006 007 008 009 2 2 2 19 20 20 20 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 1999-2009 Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population of all ages Note: Measure data are not age adjusted A hospital emergency room is not included as a specific source of primary care National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 217 Chapter People with a usual source of care (a provider or facility where one regularly receives care) experience improved health outcomes and reduced disparities (smaller differences between groups) (Starfield & Shi, 2004) and costs (De Maeseneer, et al., 2003) Evidence suggests that the effect on quality of the combination of health insurance and a usual source of care is additive (Phillips, et al., 2004) In addition, people with a usual source of care are more likely to receive preventive health services (Ettner, 1996) Access to Health Care n Overall, 86% of people had a specific source of ongoing care in 2009 (data not shown) n In 2009, people age 65 and over were most likely to have a specific source of ongoing care (97%), while people ages 18-44 were least likely to have a specific source of ongoing care (74%; Figure 9.5) n Females were more likely to have a specific source of ongoing care than males from 1999-2009 Also, in the NHDR: n In 2009, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care was lower for Blacks and AI/ANs than Whites, and was significantly lower for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic Whites Chapter n In 2009, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care was significantly lower for poor and low-income people than for high-income people n In 2009, the percentage of people with a specific source of ongoing care was lower for people with less than a high school education and people with a high school education than for people with any college education Usual Primary Care Provider Having a usual primary care provider (a doctor or nurse from whom one regularly receives care) is associated with patients’ greater trust in their provider and with good provider-patient communication These factors increase the likelihood that patients will receive appropriate care By learning about patients’ diverse health care needs over time, a usual primary care provider can coordinate care (e.g., visits to specialists) to better meet patients’ needs Having a usual primary care provider correlates with receipt of higher quality care (Parchman & Burge, 2002; Inkelas, et al., 2004) A person is determined to have had a primary care provider if his or her usual source of care setting was either a physician’s office or a hospital (setting other than an emergency room), and he or she reported going to this usual source of care for new health problems, preventive health services, and physician referrals 218 National Healthcare Quality Report, 2011 Access to Health Care Figure 9.6 People with a usual primary care provider, by age and insurance, 2002-2008 Total 0-17 100 18-44 45-64 65+ 90 90 80 80 70 70 Percent 50 Chapter 60 60 Percent Uninsured (