Differential Use of the CAHPS 0-10 Global Rating Scale by Medicaid and Commercial Populations

Published in: Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, v. 5, nos. 3-4, Dec. 2004, p. 193-205

by Peter Damiano, Marc N. Elliott, Margaret C. Tyler, Ron D. Hays

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.springerlink.com

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

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.

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.