Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether Medicaid managed care enrollees and commercially insured health plan participants respond differently to the CAHPS® 2.0 health plan survey global ratings of health care, personal doctor or nurse, and health plan. A secondary objective was to examine whether and how these differences may vary by alternative approaches to collapsing the 0-10 response scale. This study is a secondary analysis of CAHPS 2.0 health plan survey data collected in 1999 and 2000. Data on 2,142 Iowa Medicaid managed care enrollees and 1,051 commercially insured State of Iowa employees were analyzed. Differences in responses between the Medicaid-enrolled and commercially insured respondents were modeled using multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for demographics, health status and CAHPS composite measures. Results of these analyses indicated that Medicaid enrollees were significantly more likely than State of Iowa employees to use the extreme ends of the CAHPS global rating scales, particularly in the approaches when the category representing the highest end of the scale was defined as a score of 10 for the analysis. Thus, the choice of cut points for collapsing the 0-10 scales influenced statistical differences on CAHPS global ratings of care, doctor and health plan between Medicaid and privately insured populations. In conclusion, a populations use of the extremes of the global rating scales should be considered when comparing or combining CAHPS data for different populations. If response contraction bias is present, a format such as the alternative approach presented here (using categories 0-4, 5-8, 9, 10) that captures that bias may be preferable to the CAHPS format, which has been shown to maximize plan differentiation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
National committee for quality assurance, Washington, DC. The state of managed care quality, CAHPS® 2.0H: purpose and methodology. Available online: http://www.ncqa.org/ (27 Sept 2005, date last accessed).
Goldstein, E., Cleary, P.D., Langwell, K.M., Zaslavsky, A.M., Heller, A.: Medicare managed care CAHPS: A tool for performance improvement. Hlth Care Fin Rev. 22, 101–107 (2001).
Westat, Rockville, M.D.: National CAHPS® benchmarking database: http://ncbd.cahps.org/Home/Index.asp (27 May 2004, date last accessed).
Landy, F.J., Farr, J.L.: Performance rating. Psychol Bull. 87, 72–107 (1980).
Lau, R.R., Sears, D.O., Centers, R.: The “positivity bias” in evaluations of public figures: evidence against instrument artifacts. Public Opin Q. 43, 347–358 (1979).
Sears, D.O.: The person-positivity bias. J Pers Soc Psychol. 44, 233–250 (1983).
Poulton, E.C.: Bias in quantifying judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Hillsdale, NJ (1989).
Westat, Rockville, M.D.: Consumer assessment of health plan study (CAHPS®) survey users network, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Rockville, MD: http://www.cahps-sun.org/ (27 Sept 2005, date last accessed).
Fowler, F.J. Jr., Gallagher, P.M., Nederend, S.: Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS® survey instrument. Med Care. 37, MS41–MS49 (1999).
Hepner, K.A., Brown, J.A., Hays, R.D.: Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Evaluation and the Health Professions. (In press).
Zaslavsky, A.M., Zaborski, L.B., Cleary, P.D.: Factors affecting response rates to the consumer assessment of health plans study survey. Medical Care 40(6), 485–499 (2002).
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 8.0. College Station. Stata Corporation, TX (2003).
Brant, R.: Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics. 46, 1171–1178 (1990).
Long, J.S., Freese, J.: Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata Press, College Station, TX (2001).
Information on the beal codes for iowa are available at: Institute for social and economic trend analysis. Iowa State University. http://www.seta.iastate.edu/ (27 Sept 2005 date last accessed).
Hargraves, J.L., Hays, R.D., Cleary, P.D.: Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res. 38, 1509–27 (2003).
Weech-Maldonado, R., Elliott, M.N., Morales, L.S., Spritzer, K., Marshall, G.N., Hays, R.D.: Health plan effects on patient assessments of Medicaid managed care among racial/ethnic minorities. J of Gen Int Med. 19(2), 136–45 (2004).
Elliott, M.N., Swartz, R., Adams, J., et al. Case-mix adjustment of the national CAHPS® Benchmarking Data 1.0: A violation of model assumptions? Health Serv Res. 36, 555–574 (2001).
Zaslavsky, A.M., Zaborski, L., Cleary, P.D.: Does the effect of respondent characteristics on consumer assessments vary across health plans? Med Care Res Rev. 57, 379–94 (2000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Iowa Department of Human Services or the Iowa Department of Personnel.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Damiano, P.C., Elliott, M., Tyler, M.C. et al. Differential use of the CAHPS® 0–10 global rating scale by medicaid and commercial populations. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 5, 193–205 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-006-6828-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-006-6828-x