4.3 Article

Does quality of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes differ by gender for enrollees in managed care plans?

期刊

WOMENS HEALTH ISSUES
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 131-138

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2007.03.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To assess gender differences in the quality of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes for enrollees in managed care plans. Methods. We obtained data from 10 commercial and 9 Medicare plans and calculated performance on 6 Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures of quality of care (P-blocker use after myocardial infarction [Ml], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] check after a cardiac event, and in diabetics, whether glycosylated hemoglobin [HgbA1c], LDL cholesterol, nephropathy, and eyes were checked) and a 7th HEDIS-like measure (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor use for congestive heart failure). A smaller number of plans provided HEDIS scores on 4 additional measures that require medical chart abstraction (control of LDL-C after cardiac event, blood pressure control in hypertensive patients, and HgbAlc and LDL-C control in diabetics). We used logistic regression models to adjust for age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and plan. Main Findings. Adjusting for covariates, we found significant gender differences on 5 of 11 measures among Medicare enrollees, with 4 favoring men. Similarly, among commercial enrollees, we found significant gender differences for 8 of 11 measures, with 6 favoring men. The largest disparity was for control of LDL-C among diabetics, where women were 19% less likely to achieve control among Medicare enrollees (relative risk [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99) and 16% less likely among commercial enrollees (RR = 0.84; 95%Cl = 0.73-0.95). Conclusion. Gender differences in the quality of cardiovascular and diabetic care were common and sometimes substantial among enrollees in Medicare and commercial health plans. Routine monitoring of such differences is both warranted and feasible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据