Outcomes of Patients with Hypertension and Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus Treated by Different Systems and Specialties

Results from the Medical Outcomes Study

Published In: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 274, no. 18, Nov. 8, 1995, p. 1436-1444

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 1995

by Sheldon Greenfield, William H. Rogers, Maureen Mangotich, Maureen F. Carney, Alvin R. Tarlov

Read More

Access further information on this document at jama.jamanetwork.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Compares outcomes of MOS patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who were cared for in three different systems of care and by generalist and subspecialist physicians. Patients were sampled from HMOs, large multispecialty groups, and solo or single-group practices in Boston, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Functional outcomes were assessed using the SF-36; mortality was determined for the seven years following the entrance examination. No system of care or physician specialty achieved consistently better two- or four-year outcomes for patients with either hypertension or diabetes. The only specialist-related difference identified was that endocrinologists appeared to achieve better foot ulcer and infection outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus, particularly when compared with family practitioners. Moreover, no adjusted mortality difference among systems or among physician specialties were observed in the 7-year follow-up period. The authors conclude that although prepaid medicine relies more heavily on generalist physicians than does fee-for-service medicine, there is no evidence from these analyses that the quality of care of moderately ill patients with these two common diseases is adversely affected. These findings must be viewed in the light of historically higher costs of fee-for-service and subspecialty physician practice.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.