Transcription
MedicaidandMinnesotaCareHealth Care Quality Survey Results2001
For more informationVisit the DHS web site:http://www.dhs.state.mn.usorVisit the MHDI web site:http://www.mhdi.org/This report may be reproduced without restriction. Citation of the source is appreciated.For more information or additional copies of this report, please contact:Sara KoppeOperations and Production Support SupervisorPerformance Measurement & Quality ImprovementMinnesota Department of Human Services444 Lafayette Road NorthSt. Paul, MN 55155-3865Phone: 651.215.6260Fax: 651.215.5754This document is available in other forms to people with disabilities by contacting us at 651.215.6260 (voice) or through theMinnesota Relay Services at 1.800.627.3529 (TTY) or 1.877.627.3848 (speech-to-speech service).Published: September, 2001
Key Project FindingsKey Findings – 2001 Survey Overall, more significant variability was noted across agegroups than between programs. Seniors (65 ) reported morepositive experiences across all dimensions than adults (18-64)or children ( 18). Adults consistently gave lower ratings thanthe other two populations. For the questions with a 0-10 scale, Overall rating of doctoror nurse received the highest ratings across programs, rangingfrom 8.5 to 9.1. Overall rating of dental care received thelowest ratings with a range of 7.5 to 8.8. The survey topic Getting care that is needed received thehighest percentage of positive responses across programs with76% to 92% of respondents reporting they had no problemsgetting the care that is needed. The survey topic Getting carewithout long waits received the lowest percentage of positiveresponses with 47% to 60% of respondents reporting theyalways got care quickly.BackgroundThe 2001 Medicaid and MinnesotaCare Health Care QualitySurvey was the third survey conducted since 1997 by theMinnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) using theConsumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS ) surveyinstrument and methodology. The purpose of these surveys is toassess and compare the satisfaction of beneficiaries enrolled inprograms administered by DHS. The programs represented in thisyear’s survey include: 1) Three managed care programs – thePrepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP), the MinnesotaSenior Health Options (MSHO) demonstration project,and Prepaid MinnesotaCare; and 2) Medical AssistanceFee-For-Service.This year a number of new features were added to the surveyproject: New questions were added to address the issues of dental carequality, dental care access, and pneumococcal and flu vaccinationsfor seniors; The survey instrument was translated and administered in 5languages in addition to English – Hmong, Russian, Spanish,Somalian, and Vietnamese; Children were included in the survey (they were surveyed in1997 but were not included in 1999); This year’s report includes results across the three surveys donesince 1997 for the four core programs and for the health plansparticipating in PMAP.Key Findings – Across Survey Years Across programs, topic areas that have generally experienced apositive change over the three survey years include; Overallrating of specialist, Getting needed care, Getting care withoutlong waits, and Health plan customer service. Survey topics experiencing a negative change over the threesurvey years include; Doctor communication and Courtesy,respect and helpfulness of office staff. Although doctor communication ratings showed a negative change, the overall ratingsof doctor or nurse remained relatively unchanged. Findings were mixed across individual health plans participatingin PMAP.
MedicaidandMinnesotaCareHealth Care Quality Survey Results 2001Part I:About the 2001 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Part II:Program ComparisonsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5How programs compare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Part III: Plan-Specific Comparisons – Prepaid Medical Assistance ProgramIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13How health plans compare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Part IV: Plan-Specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare ProgramIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21How health plans compare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Part V:Summary of Survey Findings – 1997, 1999, 2001Overall ProgramsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29How programs compare across survey years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Part VI: Summary of Survey Findings – 1997, 1999, 2001Health Plan Specific – Prepaid Medical Assistance ProgramIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37How health plans compare across survey years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Appendix A: Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Appendix B: Respondent Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Part I:About the 2001 SurveyWhat’s new in 2001? New questionsThis year, questions were added to the instrument thataddressed the issues of dental care quality, dental care accessand pneumococcal and flu vaccinations for seniors. Translated instrumentsThe survey instrument was translated into 5 languages –Hmong, Russian, Spanish, Somalian, and Vietnamese.Beneficiaries could request a translated version of the surveythat was completed by telephone.Who sponsored the survey?The 2001 Medicaid and MinnesotaCare Health Care QualitySurvey was conducted by the Minnesota Health Data Instituteunder contract with the Minnesota Department of Human Services.Why was the survey done?The project was designed to assess and compare the satisfactionof program beneficiaries enrolled in the public programs administered by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS).DHS conducts a survey of program beneficiaries every two years.Who was surveyed?The survey included four core population groups: Medical Assistance beneficiaries enrolled in managed carehealth plans; Medical Assistance senior beneficiaries enrolled in the MinnesotaSenior Health Options (MSHO) demonstration project; MinnesotaCare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care healthplans; Medical Assistance beneficiaries enrolled in the Fee-for-Serviceprogram.What survey instrument was used?The standardized survey instrument chosen for the study wasthe Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS ) 2.0Medicaid Core Module. This is the same instrument that wasused in the 1999 DHS survey project.The instrument consists of approximately 63 questions assessingtopics such as: How well doctors communicate; Getting carewithout long waits; Helpfulness of office staff; Getting care thatis needed; Health plan customer service; and Overall satisfaction with health plans and health care. As in 1999, 12 additionalquestions from the SF-12 instrument were added to the survey.The SF-12 is a survey tool used to assess the functional status ofa defined population group.Table 1 shows how these population groups were furtherstratified by region (metro and non-metro) and by age group.What’s new in 2001?In addition to the adult (18-64) and senior (65 years and older)populations that were surveyed in 1999, children were includedin the 2001 project.Part I: About the 2001 Survey 1
Table 1Sampling and Analysis MatrixMetro*ChildrenAdults Non-MetroSeniorsChildrenAdultsSeniors Prepaid Medical Assistance ProgramBlue Plus First PlanHealthPartners Itasca Medical CareMedica Metropolitan Health Plan UCare Minnesota Medical Assistance Fee-For-ServiceMA Fee-For-ServiceMinnesotaCareBlue Plus HealthPartners Medica Minnesota Senior Health OptionsMSHO – Community *Metro area includes the 7 county metropolitan area of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul2 Part I: About the 2001 Survey Metropolitan Health PlanUCare Minnesota
How was the data collected?What’s new in 2001The survey was administered over a ten-week period fromMarch – May, 2001 using a four-wave mail plustelephone protocol.A review of program and health plan-level survey results fromthe past three surveys is presented in this report. The 1997, 1999,and 2001 survey projects were conducted using similar versionsof the CAHPS instrument and comparable survey methodologies.Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and confidential.What’s new in 2001The mail materials included a standard sentence translated in 5languages that directed the beneficiary to call a toll-free numberfor translation assistance.Topics for analysisResults from the individual questions included in the surveywere combined into ten different topic areas: How was the survey data analyzed?-Overall rating of health plan-Overall rating of health careLevel of analysis-Overall rating of specialistData analysis was conducted to support three different levelsof comparison reporting: Program Level – overall comparisons of the four corepopulation groups Health Plan Specific – comparisons of the managed carehealth plans participating in the Prepaid Medical AssistanceProgram (PMAP) and MinnesotaCare Longitudinal – findings for the core programs and individualhealth plans across survey yearsAggregate comparisons were completed for Medical Assistanceand MinnesotaCare health plan programs by combining therelevant cells of the sampling and analysis matrix presented inTable 1.Plan-specific analyses were conducted for the health plans listedin Table 1.Five overall satisfaction scores-Overall rating of personal doctor or nurse-Overall rating of dental care Five composite scores*-How well doctors communicate-Getting care without long waits-Courtesy, respect, helpfulness of office staff-Health plan customer service-Getting the care that is needed* A complete list of the individual survey questions that were asked for eachcomposite is included in Appendix A on page 46.Part I: About the 2001 Survey 3
Summary of Response Ratesto previous survey years in which PMAP adults(18-64) respond at a lower rate than the othe populations and seniors (65 ) respond at a higher rate.The average response rates by program and agegroup are presented in Table 2. The NationalCAHPS Benchmarking Database (NCBD)response rates represent the average responserates for all of the CAHPS project sponsorsthat submitted data to the NCBD in 2000.This year, rather than over-sampling the populations to increaseresponse rates, more resources were allocated to telephone follow-up for non-responders. The response rate patterns are similarCompared to the NCBD Medicaid response rates, thePMAP child and adult response rates were similar tothe NCBD child and adult averages, while the PMAP senior population reached a 12% higher response rate than the NCBD adultaverage. Appendix A provides more information about how theresponse rates were calculated for this project.Table 2Survey Response RatesPopulationAverageResponse RateResponse ByMailResponse ByTelephoneNCBD Medicaid Adult*38%NCBD Medicaid Child*39%PMAP Total42%32%10%PMAP 1840%27%13%PMAP 18-6437%25%12%PMAP 65 50%44%6%MSHO50%42%8%MinnesotaCare52%43%9%Medical Assistance FFS46%36%10%*The CAHPS data presented in this table was provided by the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database (NCBD). The NCBD isfunded by the U.S Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and administered by Westat under Contract No. 290-01-0003.4 Part I: About the 2001 Survey
Part II:Program ComparisonsIntroductionThis section of the report shows overall comparisons of the fourcore population groups: Prepaid Medical Assistance Program Minnesota Senior Health Options MinnesotaCare managed care program Medical Assistance Fee-For-ServiceScores for these core programs are presented by age group ( 18,18-64 and 65 ) and region (metro and non-metro). The scoresfor the Prepaid Medical Assistance Program and MinnesotaCareare calculated by combining the scores for the specific healthplans that are included under each program.The results are adjusted for age and self-reported health statusconsistent with the standard CAHPS protocol.The first pages in this section present actual average (mean)scores that the programs received on the five overall surveyquestions that asked enrollees to rate their or their child’s healthplan, health care, specialist, doctor or nurse and dental care.The next pages show the percentage of enrollees who respondedmost positively (or “Always”) to questions that formed thethree composite topics: How well doctors communicate;Getting care without long waits; and Courtesy, respect andhelpfulness of office staff.The last pages of this section show the percentage of enrolleeswho responded most positively (or “No Problem”) to questionsthat formed the two composite topics: Health plan customerservice and Getting care that is needed.When comparing the ratings and percentages, the reader shouldignore small differences between numbers. These small differencesmay reflect sampling variation rather than real differences.Part II: Program Comparisons 5
How programs compare – Overall ratingsThe survey had questions that asked people to rate the health carethey or their child received from their health plan and health careproviders. These questions asked people to give an overall ratingby marking any number on a scale from 0 to 10, where0 “worst possible” and 10 “best possible”.123Worstpossible4567Prepaid Medical Assistance ProgramMinnesotaCareMedical Assistance Fee-For-ServiceRatings Scale0Total8910BestpossibleMetro AreaPrepaid Medical Assistance ProgramFor each program, the number in the table shows the average(mean) of all ratings given by people who answered these questions.Minnesota Senior Health OptionsMinnesotaCareNon-Metro AreaPrepaid Medical Assistance ProgramMinnesotaCare* Program includes ages 65 only** Program does not include ages 65 6 Part II: Program Comparisons
Overall RatingsHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth planHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth careHow people ratedtheir or their child’sspecialistHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdoctor or nurseHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdental care 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 *8.38.0**8.68.6**8.17.6**Part II: Program Comparisons 7
How programs compare – Provider communication and serviceThe survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow often: Their doctors communicated well They got care without long waits Office staff were courteous, respectful and helpfulThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Never; Sometimes; Usually; or Always.Ratings ossibleFor each program, the numbers in the table show the percentof people who responded most positively (or “Always”) tothese questions.8 Part II: Program Comparisons
Topic RatingsHow well doctorscommunicateGetting care withoutlong waitsCourtesy, respect andhelpfulness of officestaff% answering “Always”% answering “Always”% answering “Always”Total 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 Prepaid Medical Assistance 60%**57%50%**71%65%**Medical Assistance 70%61%**Prepaid Medical Assistance 62%**59%55%**73%69%**Metro AreaPrepaid Medical Assistance ProgramMinnesota Senior Health OptionsMinnesotaCareNon-Metro Area* Program includes ages 65 only** Program does not include ages 65 Part II: Program Comparisons 9
How programs compare – Health plan service and access to careThe survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow much of a problem they had with: Health plan customer service Getting care that is neededThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Big Problem; Small Problem; or No Problem.Ratings ScaleBig ProblemSmall ProblemWorstpossibleNo ProblemBestpossibleFor each program, the numbers in the table shows the percentof people who responded most positively (or “No Problem”) tothese questions.10 Part II: Program Comparisons
Topic RatingsHealth plan customerserviceGetting care that isneeded% answering “No Problem”% answering “No Problem”Total 1818-6465 1818-6465 Prepaid Medical Assistance 1%**Medical Assistance %**67%**83%68%62%**85%78%**Prepaid Medical Assistance 5%**Metro AreaPrepaid Medical Assistance ProgramMinnesota Senior Health OptionsMinnesotaCareNon-Metro Area* Program includes ages 65 only** Program does not include ages 65 Part II: Program Comparisons 11
Part III:Plan-Specific Comparisons –Prepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP)IntroductionThis section of the report shows plan-specific comparisons ofthe managed care health plans participating in the PrepaidMedical Assistance Program (PMAP). The survey results for thehealth plans are presented by age group ( 18, 18-64 and 65 )and are adjusted for age and self-reported health status.The first pages in this section present actual average (mean)scores that the health plans received on the five overall surveyquestions that asked enrollees to rate their or their child’s healthplan, health care, specialist, doctor or nurse and dental care.The next pages show the percentage of enrollees who respondedmost positively (or “Always”) to questions that formed the threecomposite topics: How well doctors communicate; Getting carewithout long waits; and Courtesy, respect and helpfulness ofoffice staff.The last pages of this section show the percentage of enrolleeswho responded most positively (or “No Problem”) to questionsthat formed the two composite topics: Health plan customerservice and Getting care that is needed.In this section, the overall State PMAP average is provided forreference purposes.When comparing the ratings and percentages, the reader shouldignore small differences between numbers. These small differencesmay reflect sampling variation rather than real differences.Part III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP 13
How health plans compare – Overall ratingsPrepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP)The survey had questions that asked people to rate the health carethey or their child received from their health plan and health careproviders. These questions asked people to give an overall ratingby marking any number on a scale from 0 to 10, where0 “worst possible” and 10 “best possible”.123456Worstpossible7Blue PlusFirst PlanRatings Scale0State PMAP Average8910BestpossibleFor each health plan, the number in the table shows the average(mean) of all ratings given by people who answered these questions.HealthPartnersItasca Medical CareMedicaMetropolitan Health PlanUCare Minnesota* No results - small sample size14 Part III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP
Overall RatingsHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth planHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth careHow people ratedtheir or their child’sspecialistHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdoctor or nurseHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdental care 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 28.5Part III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP 15
How health plans compare – Provider communication and servicePrepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP)The survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow often: Their doctors communicated well They got care without long waits Office staff were courteous, respectful and helpfulThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Never; Sometimes; Usually; or Always.Ratings ossibleFor each health plan, the numbers in the table show the percentof people who responded most positively (or “Always”) tothese questions.16 Part III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP
Topic RatingsHow well doctorscommunicateGetting care withoutlong waitsCourtesy, respect andhelpfulness of officestaff% answering “Always”% answering “Always”% answering “Always” 1818-6465 1818-6465 1818-6465 State PMAP Average66%61%67%54%49%59%68%65%75%Blue Plus68%63%65%55%53%57%68%69%78%First Plan*HealthPartnersItasca Medical %73%Medica67%61%68%55%49%60%69%66%76%Metropolitan Health Plan61%62%60%41%41%48%65%65%62%UCare Minnesota63%57%67%53%46%62%66%59%75%* No results - small sample sizePart III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP 17
How health plans compare – Health plan service and access to carePrepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP)The survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow much of a problem they had with: Health plan customer service Getting care that is neededThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Big Problem; Small Problem; or No Problem.Ratings ScaleBig ProblemSmall ProblemWorstpossibleNo ProblemBestpossibleFor each health plan, the numbers in the table shows the percentof people who responded most positively (or “No Problem”) tothese questions.18 Part III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP
Topic RatingsHealth plan customerserviceGetting care that isneeded% answering “No Problem”% answering “No Problem” 1818-6465 1818-6465 State PMAP Average67%66%65%82%78%84%Blue Plus69%66%58%80%80%86%First Plan*HealthPartnersItasca Medical 8%85%81%85%Metropolitan Health Plan68%72%67%76%76%75%UCare Minnesota58%62%64%82%74%83%* No results - small sample sizePart III: Plan-specific Comparisons – PMAP 19
Part IV:Plan-Specific Comparisons –MinnesotaCare ProgramIntroductionThis section of the report shows plan-specific comparisons of themanaged care health plans participating in the MinnesotaCareprogram. The survey results for the health plans are presentedby age group ( 18, 18-64) and are adjusted for age and selfreported health status.The first pages in this section present actual average (mean)scores that the health plans received on the five overall surveyquestions that asked enrollees to rate their or their child’s healthplan, health care, specialist, doctor or nurse and dental care.The next pages show the percentage of enrollees who respondedmost positively (or “Always”) to questions that formed the threecomposite topics: How well doctors communicate; Getting carewithout long waits; and Courtesy, respect and helpfulness ofoffice staff.The last pages of this section show the percentage of enrolleeswho responded most positively (or “No Problem”) to questionsthat formed the two composite topics: Health plan customerservice and Getting care that is needed.In this section, the overall MinnesotaCare average is providedfor reference purposes.When comparing the ratings and percentages, the reader shouldignore small differences between numbers. These small differencesmay reflect sampling variation rather than real differences.Part IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare 21
How health plans compare – Overall ratingsMinnesotaCare ProgramThe survey had questions that asked people to rate the health carethey received from their or their child’s health plan and healthcare providers. These questions asked people to give an overallrating by marking any number on a scale from 0 to 10, where0 “worst possible” and 10 “best possible”.1234567Blue PlusHealthPartnersRatings Scale0MinnesotaCare Average8Worstpossible910BestpossibleFor each health plan, the number in the table shows the average(mean) of all ratings given by people who answered these questions.MedicaMetropolitan Health PlanUCare Minnesota* No results - small sample size22 Part IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare
Overall RatingsHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth planHow people ratedtheir or their child’shealth careHow people ratedtheir or their child’sspecialistHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdoctor or nurseHow people ratedtheir or their child’sdental care 1818-64 1818-64 1818-64 1818-64 7.78.58.18.68.18.78.67.87.8Part IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare 23
How health plans compare – Provider communication and serviceMinnesotaCare ProgramThe survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow often: Their doctors communicated well They got care without long waits Office staff were courteous, respectful and helpfulThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Never; Sometimes; Usually; or Always.Ratings ossibleFor each health plan, the numbers in the table show the percentof people who responded most positively (or “Always”) tothese questions.24 Part IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare
Topic RatingsHow well doctorscommunicateGetting care withoutlong waitsCourtesy, respect andhelpfulness of officestaff% answering “Always”% answering “Always”% answering “Always” 1818-64 1818-64 1818-64MinnesotaCare Average68%60%57%50%71%65%Blue 3%69%68%Metropolitan Health PlanUCare Minnesota* No results - small sample sizePart IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare 25
How health plans compare – Health plan service and access to careMinnesotaCare ProgramThe survey had a series of questions that asked people to ratehow much of a problem they had with: Health plan customer service Getting care that is neededThese questions asked people to give a rating by markingeither: Big Problem; Small Problem; or No Problem.Ratings ScaleBig ProblemSmall ProblemWorstpossibleNo ProblemBestpossibleFor each health plan, the numbers in the table shows the percentof people who responded most positively (or “No Problem”) tothese questions.26 Part IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare
Topic RatingsHealth plan customerserviceGetting care that isneeded% answering “No Problem”% answering “No Problem” 1818-64 1818-64MinnesotaCare Average66%62%86%81%Blue %65%85%84%*61%*77%63%60%85%80%Metropolitan Health PlanUCare Minnesota* No results - small sample sizePart IV: Plan-specific Comparisons – MinnesotaCare 27
Part V:Summary of Survey Findings – 1997, 1999, 2001Overall ProgramsIntroductionThe 1997, 1999 and 2001 Medicaid/MinnesotaCare surveyprojects were conducted using the CAHPS survey instrument(CAHPS 1.0 in 1997 and CAHPS 2.0 in 1999 and 2001) andthe standard CAHPS survey protocol. This section of thereport presents findings for the core programs over the threesurvey years. The results are presented by program, survey yearand age group when data is available.The first pages in this section present actual average (mean)scores that the core programs received on four overall surveyquestions that asked enrollees to rate their or their child’s healthplan, health care, specialist and doctor or nurse. Dental care isnot included since it is a new topic in 2001.The bar graphs that follow show the distribution of responsesthat the core programs received for the five composite topics:How well doctors communicate; Getting care without longwaits; Courtesy, respect and helpfulness of office staff; Healthplan customer service; and Getting care that is needed.Across the three survey years, there were some differences in thesurvey populations and instruments that impact how the surveyresults are presented. Differences in populations include: Non-metro results are not available for each of the three surveyyears. In order to make the results as comparable as possible,results are shown for the METRO AREA ONLY (with theexception of Medical Assistance Fee-For-Service which issurveyed as a non-metro only population); Children were not included in the 1999 survey.Differences in the survey instruments include: The questions that made up the topics Health plan customerservice and Getting care that is needed in 1997 were not comparable to the questions used in 1999 and 2001. Data forthese topics are not presented for 1997.When comparing the ratings and percentages, the reader shouldignore small differences between numbers. These small differencesmay reflect sampling variation rather than real differences.Part V: Summary of Survey Findings – 1997, 1999, 2001 – Overall Program
Prepaid Medical Assistance Program (PMAP), the Minnesota Senior Health Options (MSHO) demonstration project, and Prepaid MinnesotaCare; and 2) Medical Assistance Fee-For-Service. This year a number of new features were added to the survey project: New questions were ad
