Cited by 36Healthcare Policy and ManagementPatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Incentivizing excellent care to at-risk groups with a health equity summary score

Open access
Agniel, Denis, Martino, Steven C., Burkhart, Q, Hambarsoomian, Katrin, Orr, Nate, Beckett, Megan K., James, Cara, Scholle, Sarah Hudson +3 more·2021·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Social risk factors (SRFs) such as minority race-and-ethnicity or low income are associated with quality-of-care, health, and healthcare outcomes. Organizations might prioritize improving care for easier-to-treat groups over those with SRFs, but measuring, reporting, and further incentivizing quality-of-care for SRF groups may improve their care. Objective To develop, as a proof-of-concept, a Health Equity Summary Score (HESS): a succinct, easy-to-understand score that could be used to promote high-quality care to those with SRFs in Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans, which provide care for almost twenty million older and disabled Americans and collect extensive quality measure and SRF data. Design We estimated, standardized, and combined performance scores for two sets of quality measures for enrollees in 2013-2016 MA health plans, considering both current levels of care, within-plan improvement, and nationally benchmarked improvement for those with SRFs (specifically, racial-and-ethnic minority status and dual-eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid). Participants All MA plans with publicly reported quality scores and 500 or more 2016 enrollees. Main measures Publicly reported clinical quality and patient experience measures. Key results Almost 90% of plans measured for MA Star Ratings received a HESS; plans serving few patients with SRFs were excluded. The summary score was moderately positively correlated with publicly reported overall Star Ratings (r = 0.66-0.67). High-scoring plans typically had sizable enrollment of both racial-and-ethnic minorities (38-42%) and dually eligible beneficiaries (29-38%). Conclusions We demonstrated the feasibility of developing and estimating a HESS that is intended to promote and incentivize excellent care for racial-and-ethnic minorities and dually eligible MA enrollees. The HESS measures SRF-specific performance and does not simply duplicate overall plan Star Ratings. It also identifies plans that provide excellent care to large numbers of those with SRFs. Our methodology could be extended to other SRFs, quality measures, and settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-019-05473-x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Scales or items developed to measure experiences of care with a health equity lens often focus primarily on racialized groups and groups experiencing financial strain.

    “Scales or items developed to measure experiences of care that strive to use a health equity lens often focus primarily on racialized groups (e.g., based on a mix of geographic origin, skin colour, and identity), and on groups experiencing financial strain [14, 17, 18].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kwan LY, Stratton K, Steinwachs DM, editors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. 580 p.
  2. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression, Second Edition. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agniel, D., Martino, S. C., Burkhart, Q., Hambarsoomian, K., Orr, N., Beckett, M. K., James, C., Scholle, S. H., Wilson-Frederick, S., Ng, J., & Elliott, M. N.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (US)
  • National Committee for Quality Assurance (US)
Corresponding author
Elliott, Marc N.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2019-11-11
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
1847-1857
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2984202484
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (GS-10F-0012Y / HHSM-500-2016-00097G)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
health equity, social risk factors, Medicare Advantage, quality of care, racial and ethnic minorities, dual eligibility, quality metrics, star ratings, vulnerable populations
MeSH terms
Health Equity, Aged, Ethnicity, Humans, Minority Groups, Motivation, United States, Medicare Part C

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review