Managed Long Term Care Plan
Member Satisfaction Survey Report
September 2011
Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1
Section One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2
Section Two: Methodology......................................................................................................... 3
Section Three: Results............................................................................................................... 4
Section Four: Multivariate Regression .....................................................................................25
Section Five: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................33
APPENDIX A: FREQUENCY TABLES ....................................................................................36
APPENDIX B: SURVEY TOOL ................................................................................................55
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
1
Section One: Introduction
This study assesses the level of satisfaction of members enrolled in one of New York State’s
Medicaid Managed Long Term Care (MLTC) plans. The primary purpose of the study is to
provide the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) with information regarding
member satisfaction with the quality, accessibility, and timeliness of services provided by these
plans.
A)
Background
Satisfaction surveys are a key tool for improving the delivery of long-term care services, and
such surveys are integral to ongoing quality improvement efforts. On both federal and state
levels, programs continue to utilize and expand the use of consumer-driven data and
experiences to improve the health care quality of the elderly, and in many cases, chronically ill
populations.
On a national basis, since 1998, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has
collected information pertaining to consumer satisfaction and the health services experiences of
Medicare managed care enrollees through the Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and
Systems (CAHPS) survey. This survey includes the following domains:
o
o
o
o
o
Getting Needed Care
Getting Care Quickly
Doctors Who Communicate Well
Flu Shot Rate
Overall Ratings of: Health Care, Health Plan, Doctor and Specialist
This survey has undergone periodic revisions; recently for example, for the 2006 year, data
collection was expanded to include satisfaction and experience of members enrolled in a
Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan. CAHPS surveys are also collected for commercial
and Medicaid managed care populations. The NYSDOH administers a biennial Medicaid
managed care survey which is largely based on CAHPS.
Examples of satisfaction surveys on state and local levels are available as well. Several years
ago, Florida PACE engaged a consultant to help design a quality improvement initiative for the
PACE centers. Part of the initiative included the development of a satisfaction survey which
included questions related to transportation, day center activities, medical care, and overall
care. The surveys were implemented several times during the year, telephonically, to all
members. The survey results indicated that, while client satisfaction was remarkably high, it
became apparent that there were some areas in which improvement was needed, namely,
transportation, communication, and meals*.
Another example can be seen in Maine’s Elderly and Home Based Care programs. Maximus, a
consulting firm, conducted in-home surveys of 100 elderly clients in these two programs as part
of an evaluation. The surveys examined satisfaction with care, knowledge of program services,
and the quality of interaction between the client and the care manager.
*
South Florida Hospital News, September 21, 2007, pages 1-3
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
2
IPRO has observed that while all of the NYS MLTC plans conduct internal annual member
satisfaction surveys, no standardized surveys exist for these plans; each plan has developed
their own individualized surveys. IPRO reviewed a sample of these surveys. Several of them
addressed satisfaction with plan services in a general sense, and covered courtesy and
sensitivity, but specific questions relating to the quality of plan services, and timeliness and
access to services, were often not addressed.
IPRO, in conjunction with the NYSDOH, conducted a member satisfaction survey in 2007.
Survey results were overall positive, with the majority of MLTC respondents very satisfied with
their health plan, and most would recommend their plan to others.
The 2007 survey included membership from the MLTC partially capitated and PACE programs.
Since 2007, the MLTC program expanded to include the Medicaid Advantage Plus (MAP)
product line. It was determined that a follow up survey was appropriate, to compare partially
capitated and PACE satisfaction levels with the 2007 survey findings, and to determine
satisfaction levels for the MAP members.
B)
Objectives
IPRO and the NYSDOH developed a survey to evaluate satisfaction with the services provided
by the MLTC plans. Specific objectives were to assess whether:
• MLTC enrollees are satisfied with:
- quality of health care services
- access to primary health care services
- timeliness of primary health care and long term care services
• There are differences in care, and in satisfaction of care, between the three principal MLTC
plan models (PACE, partially capitated, and MAP plans) and between different age groups,
reported state of health, race/ethnicity, and primary language.
• There has been a change in members’ perception of quality of care and overall satisfaction
since the last satisfaction survey in 2007.
Section Two: Methodology
To achieve the objectives, a scannable survey instrument was created. The survey contains all
of the questions from the 2007 survey, with the addition of four (4) new questions addressing
medication management and advance directives. A copy of the survey is included as an
attachment. The survey includes three (3) sections. The first section addresses members’
general experience with their managed long-term care plan, such as plan of care involvement,
courtesy and timeliness of responses with complaints and grievances, and whether or not the
managed long term care plan would be recommended to others. The second section deals with
the quality of specific health care services, including both primary and long term care services.
Members were asked to rate the quality of these services, whether covered by their plan or not.
The second section also addresses timeliness of some key long term care services, and access
to primary health care services. Respondents were asked to self report on various demographic
questions (e.g., age, gender, race, education) in Section 3. Most of the questions in this section
were adapted from the Medicaid CAHPS survey. This section also includes questions pertaining
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
3
to living arrangements and whether assistance was provided in completing the survey, as well
as questions regarding the status of members’ advance directives.
English, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese versions were prepared and distributed based upon the
primary language designations provided by the NYSDOH. Surveys were printed with randomly
assigned identifiers used solely to track responses. The initial mailing went out in February
2011, with a follow up mailing in April 2011 in an effort to maximize the response rate.
To identify the eligible population for the survey, inclusion criteria were as follows:
• MLTC plan enrollees from 25 plans/product lines. The breakdown by plan is as follows:
PACE-7, partially capitated-13, MAP-5.
• Continuously enrolled in an MLTC plan for a minimum of 6 months as of October 31,
2010.
The NYSDOH provided the enrollee sample frame for the survey, which included the primary
language for the majority of enrollees. From this file, a sample of 400 enrollees from each plan
was selected or the entire membership if the plan’s enrollment was less than 400. The final
sample, for mailing, was 6,103 enrollees. An English version of the survey was included with
every non-English (Spanish, Russian, Chinese) mailing.
Enrollees were told that participation in the survey was voluntary and confidential. A toll free
number was provided to them for assistance if necessary.
Section Three: Results
A)
Response Rates
Of the 6,103 surveys that were mailed, 361 were returned as undeliverable due to either mailing
address issues, the member was no longer in the plan, or the member was deceased. This
yielded an adjusted population of 5,742. A total of 1,845 surveys were completed, with an
overall response rate of 32.1%.
Tables 1 and 2 display the response rates by plan model and by plan. Response rates differed
by plan, ranging from 14.3 to 61.9%.
Table 3 displays survey responses by language. Non-English responses comprised 25% of all
responses.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
4
Table 1: Survey Responses by Plan Model
Item
N
%
Partially Capitated
Surveys mailed
Less exclusions:
Address issues
No longer member
Deceased
Adjusted Population
Completed
4,510
240
219
7
14
4,270
1,307
5.3
4.9
0.2
0.3
30.6
PACE
Surveys mailed
Less exclusions:
Address issues
No longer member
Deceased
Adjusted Population
Completed
1,178
101
82
1
18
1,077
409
8.6
7.0
0.1
1.5
38.0
MAP
Surveys mailed
Less exclusions:
Address issues
No longer member
Deceased
Adjusted Population
Completed
415
20
19
0
1
395
129
4.8
4.6
0.0
0.2
32.7
Combined Total
Surveys mailed (Total Population)
Less exclusions:
Address issues
No longer member
Deceased
Adjusted Population
Completed
6,103
361
320
8
33
5,742
1,845
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
5.9
5.2
0.1
0.5
32.1
5
Table 2: Response Rates by Plan
Item
Adjusted
No. of
Population Respondents
Percent
Partially Capitated
Fidelis Care At Home
Senior Network Health
Elant Choice
Senior Health Partners
Home First
Independence Care System
Wellcare
CCM Select
Guild Net
Amerigroup
HHH Choices
VNS Choice
Total Aging in Place
TOTAL
266
320
117
388
384
383
391
378
377
384
380
379
123
4,270
100
115
38
126
122
119
120
111
108
107
105
103
33
1,307
37.6
35.9
32.5
32.5
31.8
31.1
30.7
29.4
28.6
27.9
27.6
27.2
26.8
30.6
21
28
207
382
323
83
33
1,077
13
15
79
145
120
30
7
409
61.9
53.6
38.2
38.0
37.2
36.1
21.2
38.0
149
33
195
11
7
395
57
10
59
2
1
129
38.3
30.3
30.3
18.2
14.3
32.7
PACE
Catholic Health Life
Total Senior Care
ILS Rochester
CCM PACE
PACE CNY
Eddy Senior Care
Arch Care
TOTAL
MAP
Senior Whole Health
VNS Choice MAP
Guild Net Gold
Fidelis MAP
Elderplan MAP
TOTAL
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
6
Table 3: Survey Responses by Language
Item
N
%
Partially Capitated
Adjusted Population
Completed
English
Chinese
Russian
Spanish
4,270
1,307
903
106
87
211
69.1
8.1
6.7
16.1
1,077
409
374
7
16
12
91.4
1.7
3.9
2.9
395
129
106
0
1
22
82.2
0.0
0.8
17.1
5,742
1,845
1,383
113
104
245
75.0
6.1
5.6
13.3
PACE
Adjusted Population
Completed
English
Chinese
Russian
Spanish
MAP
Adjusted Population
Completed
English
Chinese
Russian
Spanish
Combined Total
Adjusted Population
Completed
English
Chinese
Russian
Spanish
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
7
B)
Survey Demographics
The demographic profile of the 2007 and 2011 populations were very similar. Seventy-five
percent of respondents in 2011 were female (76% in 2007), and 81% were 65 years of age or
older (84% in 2007). Nearly half of respondents (2011: 47%; 2007: 48%) had at least a high
school diploma.
English was the primary language for 57% of the 2011 respondents (63% in 2007), with Spanish
as the next most common at 21% (19% in 2007), while the rest were Chinese (2011: 12%;
2007: 7%), Russian (2011: 7%; 2007: 5%) and other (2011: 4%; 2007: 5%). Overall, the
percentage of respondents that do not speak English as their primary language increased
slightly from 2007.
Twenty-nine percent of respondents rated their current state of health as very poor/poor (30% in
2007), 43% rated their health as fair (45% in 2007), and 27% as very good/good (25% in 2007).
The vast majority of respondents live at home (95% in 2011 and 2007), half of whom live alone
(2011: 50%; 2007: 49%). Two-thirds of the respondents reported that they received assistance
in completing the survey (2011: 66%; 2007: 70%), mostly from family members or friends (2011:
64%; 2007: 72%).
Survey demographic results can be found in Appendix A, Table 29.
C)
Plan Evaluation / Rating of Health Plan
Section 1 of the survey consisted of questions concerning members’ experience with their
MLTC plan. A new question asking whether the plans had asked to see prescriptions and over­
the-counter medicines was added to this section, as well as 3 questions relating to advance
directives, which were included at the end of Section 3 of the survey. These questions will be
analyzed and presented with Section 1 items. Frequency distributions of these questions can be
found in Appendix A, Table 24 (Q1-14) and Table 29 (Q66-67).
Table 4 compares responses from each survey year, i.e. 2007 vs. 2011, which shows that the
level of satisfaction among 2007 and 2011 respondents was basically the same and remained
high between the two survey years, as demonstrated by the non-significant p-values*. Other
notable trends were as follows:
• Nine out of every 10 said that they would recommend their plan to others (91%).
• Eighty-five percent rated their plan as excellent/good and 85% reported that their plan
always/usually explained services clearly.
• The majority of members reported that the plan helped them to manage their illness
(84%), and the majority also reported that they were always/usually involved in decisions
about their plan of care (78%). This demonstrates the collaboration between the plan
and the member to improve the member’s health.
• About nine out of every 10 respondents (87%) reported that someone from the health
plan had asked to see all of the prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines they were
*
The chance of a spurious statistically significant result increased due to the extensive number of survey items and
the many statistical tests performed. To limit the likelihood of reporting significance when it does not exist, the
Bonferroni correction for multiple analyses was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of p<0.001.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
8
taking, which is a positive indication of the plans’ efforts to help the members manage
their medications.
• A significantly lower percentage of members reported that they called the plan with
questions or for help in 2011 versus 2007 (61% vs. 69%). Of these respondents:
o 55% said that they always spoke with a person quickly;
o 61% said their questions were answered quickly:
o 68% said they were always able to understand the answers provided;
o 87% said they were always treated with politeness and respect.
• A significantly lower percentage of members called the plan with a complaint or grievance in 2011 versus 2007 (29% vs. 39%). Of these respondents: o 53% said that the complaint was responded to in a timely manner;
o 45% said that they were always satisfied with the response;
o 77% said that they were always treated with politeness and respect.
Advance directives are considered an important component in the overall care of the long-term
care population. About three-fifths (63%) of the respondents reported that their health plan has
talked to them about appointing someone and/or having a legal document appointing someone
to make health care decisions on their behalf in the event that they are unable to do so (59%).
Of the latter, 61% said that their health plan has retained a copy of the document.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
9
Table 4: Plan Evaluation – Comparison by Survey Year
2007
2007 vs.
2011
2011
Item Description
Denominator* Percent Denominator* Percent
Section 1: MLTC Plan Evaluation
Plan always/usually explained services
1
1,317
85.2
1,733
84.9
clearly
Always/Usually involved in decisions
2
1,318
76.1
1,738
78.0
about plan of care
3
Called plan with question or for help
1,377
69.1
1,769
61.2
4t Always spoke with a person quickly
922
54.4
1,050
55.4
5at Questions always answered quickly
922
59.9
1,052
60.6
5bt Always able to understand the answers
Always treated with politeness and
respect
Called plan with a complaint or
7
grievance
Complaint was always responded to in
8t
a timely manner
9t Always satisfied with response
Always treated with politeness and
10t
respect
Plan asked to see prescription/over the
11++
counter medicines
12 Plan has helped to manage illness
13 Would recommend the plan
14 Rated plan as good or excellent
6t
n.s.
n.s.
0.0001
n.s.
n.s.
914
67.8
1,044
67.8
n.s.
924
87.9
1,043
86.8
n.s.
1,360
39.0
1,746
28.7
0.0001
515
52.8
484
53.1
n.s.
517
43.3
480
44.6
n.s.
521
76.8
485
76.7
n.s.
1,628
86.5
1,806
1,773
1,816
83.7
90.8
85.2
1,374
1,366
1,388
83.8
90.6
87.0
65++
Health plan has talked about appointing
someone to make health care decisions
1,763
62.5
66++
Has a legal document appointing
someone to make health care decisions
1,802
59.1
Health plan has a copy of this legal
document
1,045
60.5
67++t
P
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* Denominator excludes not applicable responses.
t Items based on skip pattern
+ Member can check all that apply
++ New question in 2011
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
D)
QUALITY OF CARE
In Section 2A of the survey, members were asked to rate the quality of services and supplies
they received. Frequency distributions for the 22 Quality of Care items can be found in Appendix
A, Table 25.
Table 5 displays the rank ordered positive (excellent/good) ratings given by members pertaining
to quality of care compared by survey year. Members’ perception of the quality of the care they
received has remained high in 2011. Other notable trends from this section include:
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
10
• Fourteen out of the 22 care providers listed had at least 80% of the respondents giving
an excellent/good rating for quality in 2011, including highly utilized services such as
pharmacy services (90%), regular doctor (89%), care manager (87%), home health aide
(87%), medical supplies/equipment (87%), visiting nurse (86%), foot doctor (83%), eye
care professional (82%) and social worker (82%).
• Speech therapists were least likely to receive positive ratings with regard to quality of
care in 2011 with 65%, but it was also the least utilized.
• Of the highly utilized providers, dentists have the lowest percentage of positive ratings,
and there was no improvement seen from the 2007 responses (2007: 71%; 2011: 72%).
Table 5: Quality of Care – Comparison by Survey Year
2007
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
(Excellent/Good)
33 Pharmacy Services
15 Regular doctor
20 Care Manager/Case Manager
26 Medical Supplies and Equipment
19a
21a
18
17
25
22
19b
31
21b
30
34
29
23
28
16
27
32
24
2007 vs.
2011
2011
Denominator* Percent Denominator* Percent
Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered
Nurse
Foot Doctor
Eye Care
Social Worker
Physical Therapist
Home Health Agency, Personal Care
Agency
Transportation Services
Covering/On-call nurse
Day Health Center Activities
Nutritionist
Meals served at the Day Health Center
Occupational Therapist
Home Delivered Meals/Meals on
Wheels
Dentist
Audiology/Hearing Aids
Nursing Home
Speech Therapist
P
1,183
1,271
1,255
1,077
91.6
89.0
88.0
88.4
1,514
1,664
1,612
1,373
89.8
88.5
87.0
86.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
1,213
84.7
1,529
86.7
n.s.
1,209
88.3
1,583
85.8
n.s.
950
1,050
965
687
82.2
82.8
85.7
80.8
1,248
1,462
1,168
881
82.9
82.4
82.3
82.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
1,183
80.3
1,536
81.4
n.s.
1,094
876
455
468
439
360
81.3
81.1
82.2
81.2
77.0
73.9
1,450
1,128
599
653
574
491
80.8
80.2
80.0
79.3
78.0
77.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
248
79.0
314
72.9
n.s.
869
309
158
144
71.2
72.5
74.7
63.9
1,148
414
216
210
71.7
69.8
67.1
65.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* Denominator excludes not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
11
E)
TIMELINESS OF CARE
In Section 2B of the survey, members were asked to rate how often the services were on time
or if they were able to see the provider at the scheduled time. Frequency distributions for the 15
items in this section can be found in Appendix A, Table 26.
Table 6 displays the rank ordered positive (always/usually) ratings given by members compared
by survey year.
While the majority of members perceived the timeliness of care to be always/usually on time,
there was a decrease in the percentage of members giving a positive rating between 2007 and
2011. This trend is especially true for care managers, visiting nurses, medical
supplies/equipment and covering nurses, which all yielded statistically significant differences
when compared year-to-year. Other notable trends observed were:
• A large majority of respondents reported that the care provided by highly-utilized
services such as pharmacy services (80%), home health aides (79%), care managers
(73%), visiting nurses (73%), medical supplies (73%) and transportation to the doctor
(72%) were always/usually timely.
• Social workers were least likely to receive a high rating for timeliness (64%), out of all
the highly utilized services.
• Physical, occupational and speech therapists were also less likely to receive high ratings
for timeliness; however, these services are much less utilized by members.
Table 6: Timeliness of Care – Comparison by Survey Year
2007
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness (Always/Usually)
45 Pharmacy Services
35 Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
36 Care Manager/Case Manager
2007 vs.
2011
2011
Denominator* Percent Denominator* Percent
P
1,128
1,139
1,133
83.4
83.6
78.9
1,431
1,383
1,407
79.8
78.9
73.0
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
37a
44
43c
43a
43d
43b
Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered Nurse
Medical Supplies and Equipment
Transportation: TO the doctor
Transportation: TO Day Center
Transportation: FROM the doctor
Transportation: FROM Day Center
1,185
973
982
429
960
409
78.9
78.9
75.3
74.1
73.6
74.3
1,493
1,276
1,315
691
1,318
597
72.6
72.7
71.9
68.9
68.6
68.5
0.0001
0.001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
42
37b
41
38
39
40
Home Delivered Meals/Meals on Wheels
Covering/On-call nurse
Social Worker
Physical Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Speech Therapist
260
829
851
553
293
127
66.9
72.6
70.1
69.4
62.2
49.6
322
1,074
1,049
711
407
178
66.1
65.0
64.2
62.0
56.0
40.5
n.s.
0.0001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* Denominator excludes not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
12
F)
ACCESS TO CARE
In Section 2C of the survey, members were asked to indicate how long they generally had to
wait for routine and urgent appointments for frequently utilized providers. Appendix A, Tables 27
and 28 provide frequency distributions for these survey items.
Timely access to routine appointments was defined as obtaining an appointment with a provider
within 30 days of contact date. Timely access to urgent appointments was defined as obtaining
an appointment on the same day that the member needed care. Tables 7 and 8 display the rank
ordered results for timely access to routine and urgent appointments compared by survey year.
Table 7 shows that for routine appointments respondents were more likely to have timely
access (less than one month) to routine appointments with regular doctors (59%). Dentists
(45%) foot doctors (44%) and eye care (42%) ranked lower in this regard, respectively. For eye
care, 42% of 2011 respondents said that they had timely access to eye care compared with
50% of the respondents in 2007, which is a significant decrease.
Table 8 shows that respondents in both survey years gave similar ratings with regard to timely
access to urgent (same day) appointments.
Overall, it should be noted that the percentage of members who reported that access to care
was timely has remained relatively low in both survey years, regardless of whether it was a
routine or urgent appointment.
Table 7: Timely Access to Routine Appointments (Less than 1 month) – Comparison by
Survey Year
2007
Item Description
Section 2C: Access to Care - Routine
Appointments (Less than 1 month)
46 Regular doctor
47 Dentist
49 Foot Doctor
48 Eye Care
* Denominator excludes not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
2007 vs.
2011
2011
Denominator* Percent Denominator* Percent
1,130
684
798
880
64.2
48.8
50.4
50.1
1,483
916
1,043
1,196
P
58.5
44.5
44.1
41.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.0001
13
Table 8: Timely Access to Urgent Appointments (Same day) – Comparison by Survey
Year
2007
Item Description
Section 2D: Access to Care - Urgent
Appointments (Same day)
50 Regular doctor
51 Dentist
52 Eye Care
53 Foot Doctor
* Denominator excludes not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
2007 vs.
2011
2011
Denominator* Percent Denominator* Percent
897
449
554
549
51.1
22.9
19.7
18.6
1,234
656
853
763
P
51.0
25.5
24.2
23.1
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
G) GROUP COMPARISONS
Group comparisons were performed for selected survey items according to plan type, age
group, current health status of the member and race/ethnicity. The objective is to determine
which subgroups of the long-term care population were most or least satisfied with the quality of
service, timeliness of service and access to care for 2011, and whether there were any
significant changes from 2007. Survey items were dichotomized and comparisons were
performed using chi-square statistics. Only significant comparisons have been noted.
Comparisons by Plan Type
•
Plan Rating
(Table 9)
PACE plan members were more likely to recommend their plan to
others compared to partially capitated plan members (95% vs. 89%).
• A significantly higher proportion of respondents from PACE and MAP
plans than from partially capitated plans reported that their health plan
had asked to see their prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines
(PACE: 92%; MAP: 97% vs. partially capitated: 84%).
• The proportion of partially capitated plan members who called the plan
regarding queries (60% vs. 70%) and/or complaints (28% vs. 37%) was
significantly lower in 2011 compared to 2007.
• PACE plans were more likely to speak about appointing a healthcare
proxy (78%) to their members and it can be inferred that their members
are more likely to have advance directive documents (83%), as a result.
Quality of Care
(Table 10)
•
PACE members responded more favorably than partially capitated
members with regard to the quality of: medical supplies/equipment
(93% vs. 85%); the service provided by social workers (91% vs. 78%);
nutritionists (87% vs. 74%) and occupational therapists (86% vs. 71%).
Timeliness of
Care
(Table 11)
•
Care managers (79% vs. 72%) and visiting nurses (78% vs. 71%) saw
a significant decrease in the percentage of partially capitated members
who perceived the timeliness of care to be always/usually on time
between 2007 and 2011.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
14
•
PACE members gave higher ratings than partially capitated members
with regard to the timeliness of medical supplies/equipment (81% vs.
70%), transportation to (80 vs. 61%) and from (79% vs. 59%) the day
center, and social workers (77% vs. 58%).
Access to
Routine
Appointments
(Table 12)
• Timely access to routine appointments with regular doctors (54% vs.
75%) and foot doctors (41% vs. 55%) was less likely for partially
capitated members than PACE members.
• While roughly 50% of partially capitated members in 2007 said that they
had timely access to routine appointments with foot doctors and eye
care providers, only about 40% said the same in 2011.
Access to
Urgent
Appointments
(Table 13)
• A higher percentage of PACE members than partially capitated
members responded favorably when asked about timely access to
urgent appointments with regular doctors (63% vs. 48%).
• Partially capitated members were more likely to respond favorably
regarding urgent appointments with dentists than PACE members (29%
vs. 13%).
Comparisons by Age Group*
Quality of Care
• There were no significant differences by age group year-to-year and
across all age groups within 2011. This is the same trend seen in 2007.
Timeliness of
Care
• Year-to-year comparison by age cohort showed that:
o For social workers, 18-64 year old members were less likely to
respond positively regarding the timeliness of service in 2011
than in 2007 (78% vs. 61%).
o For visiting nurses, 65+ year old members were less likely to
rate the timeliness of service positively in 2011 than in 2007
(80% vs. 74%).
Access to
Routine
Appointments
• Only 42% of respondents in 2011 who were 65+ years old reported that
they had timely access to routine eye care appointments, which is
significantly lower than what was observed in 2007 (50%).
Access to
Urgent
Appointments
• No statistically significant differences emerged between age groups
with regard to access to urgent appointments.
Comparisons by Self-Reported Health Status
Quality of Care
(Table 14)
• In 2011, respondents who were in good health rated 14 of the 22
quality of care items higher than those who were in poor health,
including the following highly utilized services such as regular doctor
(94% vs. 87%), dentist (82% vs. 68%), care manager (92% vs. 85%),
visiting nurse (91% vs. 84%), foot doctor (90% vs. 81%), social worker
(90% vs. 79%), transportation services (86% vs. 79%) and on-call
* Tables are not presented.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
15
nurse (88% vs. 78%).
Timeliness of
Care
(Table 15)
• There was no statistical evidence that the timeliness of care ratings
given by members differed by health status in 2011.
• Respondents whose reported health status was good/very good rated
the timeliness of care items in 2011 highly, which is similar to ratings of
the same cohort in 2007.
• For those members whose health was poor, there was a significant
decrease in the percentage of positive ratings for the timeliness of
service by visiting nurses (79% to 72%), medical supplies/equipment
(80% to 72%) and covering nurses (73% to 63%) from 2007 to 2011.
Access to
Routine
Appointments
(Table 16)
• Those who were of poor health status in 2011 were significantly less
likely to report that they had timely access to routine appointments with
regular doctors (57% vs. 66%), foot doctors (42% vs. 51%) and for eye
care (41% vs. 52%) than respondents of the same cohort in 2007.
Access to
Urgent
Appointments*
• There were no significant differences in responses with regard to
access to urgent appointments according to health status.
Comparisons by Race/Ethnicity*
Quality of Care
• In 2011, white respondents were more likely than black respondents to
give high quality of care ratings with regard to occupational therapists
(85% vs. 62%) and the home-delivered meal service (82% vs. 57%).
• White respondents were also more likely to highly rate the quality of
care by dentists compared to Asians (76% vs. 60%).
Timeliness of
Care
• White respondents in 2011 were significantly less likely to give high
ratings for timeliness of care by home health aides (2007: 87%; 2011:
81%), care managers (2007: 82%; 2011: 74%) and covering nurses
(2007: 78%; 2011: 68%) than members of the same cohort in 2007.
Access to
Routine
Appointments
•
Access to
Urgent
Appointments White respondents were significantly more likely to give more favorable
ratings with regard to routine appointments with their regular doctor
than any other race group (Whites: 69%; Blacks: 52%; Asians: 47%;
other: 55%).
• White respondents were more likely than Asians and others to report
that they had timely access to routine appointments with dentists (54%
vs. 30% and 35%), foot doctors (50% vs. 31% and 39%) and eye care
providers (50% vs. 27% and 35%)
• No statistically significant differences emerged between race/ethnic groups with regard to access to urgent appointments. * Tables are not presented.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
16
Comparisons by Primary Language*
Quality of Care
• Members whose primary language was English were more likely
than Spanish speaking members to give a positive rating with
regard to the quality of the following services: medical
supplies/equipment (90% vs. 77%), eye care (85% vs. 75%), social
worker (87% vs. 71%), physical therapist (84% vs. 71%), nutritionist
(84% vs. 65%), dentist (79% vs. 64%) and audiology/hearing aids
(78% vs. 52%).
• Members whose primary language was English were also more
likely than Chinese-speaking members to rate dentists highly (79%
vs. 60%), which is consistent with the race/ethnicity comparison.
Timeliness of
Care
• Respondents whose primary language was English were less likely
to give positive ratings in 2011 than 2007 for timeliness of care by
care managers (2007: 82%; 2011: 72%), visiting nurses (2007:
80%; 2011: 73%), covering nurses (2007: 76%; 2011:66%) and
physical therapists (2007: 74%; 2011: 63%).
Access to Routine
Appointments Access to Urgent
Appointments
• English and Russian-speaking respondents were more likely to
respond favorably with regard to routine appointments with regular
doctors and eye care providers than Spanish and Chinesespeaking respondents.
• English-speaking respondents were more likely to respond
favorably than Spanish and Chinese-speaking respondents with
regard to routine appointments with dentists.
• There were no significant differences in responses by language spoken regarding access to urgent appointments. MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
17
Table 9: Plan Evaluation – Comparison by Plan Type
2007 vs. 2011
Item Description
Section 1: MLTC Plan Evaluation
Plan always/usually explained services
1
clearly
Always/Usually involved in decisions
2
about plan of care
3
Called plan with question or for help
4t Always spoke with a person quickly
5at Questions always answered quickly
5bt Always able to understand the answers
Always treated with politeness and
6t
respect
7
Called plan with a complaint or grievance
Complaint was always responded to in a
8t
timely manner
9t Always satisfied with response
Always treated with politeness and
10t
respect
Plan asked to see prescription/over the
11++
counter medicines
12
13
14
Plan has helped to manage illness
Would recommend the plan
Rated plan as good or excellent
Health plan has talked about appointing
65++
someone to make health care decisions
Has a legal document appointing
66++
someone to make health care decisions
Health plan has a copy of this legal
67++ t
document
Partial
Cap
(N=889*)
%
Partial
Cap
(N=1,307*)
%
P
2011
PACE
PACE
2007
2011
(N=216*) (N=409*)
%
%
P
MAP
2011
(N=129*)
%
2007
2011
PACE vs. Partial Cap vs. MAP@
P
P
85.8
83.5
n.s.
81.3
87.6
n.s.
90.2
n.s.
n.s.
76.6
76.4
n.s.
75.9
81.4
n.s.
83.2
n.s.
n.s.
69.8
55.6
60.0 0.0001
52.8
n.s.
68.9
51.8
64.4
61.1
n.s.
n.s.
62.4
62.5
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
60.1
68.6
58.4
65.0
n.s.
n.s.
58.7
65.7
66.1
76.7
n.s.
n.s.
63.9
65.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
87.5
85.4
n.s.
88.1
88.6
n.s.
94.4
n.s.
n.s.
37.3
28.2 0.0001
43.1
32.3
n.s.
21.5
n.s.
n.s.
51.3
50.0
n.s.
62.4
58.9
n.s.
64.0
n.s.
n.s.
41.5
40.5
n.s.
48.8
52.3
n.s.
57.7
n.s.
n.s.
76.7
74.6
n.s.
80.5
79.7
n.s.
88.5
n.s.
n.s.
83.8
91.5
96.6
0.0001
COMPARISON
PACE,MAP>
Partial Cap
83.7
81.2
n.s.
83.6
90.8
n.s.
86.4
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
90.6
86.5
89.1
83.7
n.s.
n.s.
88.7
91.1
94.9
89.9
n.s.
n.s.
94.4
85.8
n.s.
n.s.
0.001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
57.3
77.9
65.0
0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
50.6
83.1
68.8
0.0001
55.0
76.9
38.4
PACE>MAP>Partial
Cap
PACE>Partial
0.0001
Cap,MAP
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses
for each item, and exclude not applicable responses.
t Items based on skip pattern
+ Member can check all that apply
++ New question in 2011
@ MAP plans were not included in 2007
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
18
Table 10: Quality of Care – Comparison by Plan Type
2007 vs. 2011
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
(Excellent/Good)
33 Pharmacy Services
15 Regular doctor
20 Care Manager/Case Manager
19a Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
26 Medical Supplies and Equipment
Partial
Cap
2007
(N=889*)
Partial
Cap
2011
(N=1,307*)
%
%
PACE
2007
P
PACE
2011
(N=216*) (N=409*)
%
P
%
2011
2007
2011
MAP
2011
PACE vs. Partial Cap vs. MAP@
(N=129*)
%
92.3
89.6
87.9
86.6
87.2
88.5
88.5
85.8
87.0
84.5
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
92.4
89.9
88.1
76.5
90.5
93.6
88.7
90.1
86.6
93.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
89.2
88.5
89.6
83.1
85.6
P
P
COMPARISON
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
21a
Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered Nurse
87.9
84.4
n.s.
88.9
91.2
n.s.
83.5
n.s.
18
17
25
22
Foot Doctor
Eye Care
Social Worker
Physical Therapist
Home Health Agency, Personal Care
Agency
Transportation Services
Covering/On-call nurse
Day Health Center Activities
Nutritionist
Meals served at the Day Health Center
Occupational Therapist
Home Delivered Meals/Meals on Wheels
Dentist
Audiology/Hearing Aids
Nursing Home
Speech Therapist
83.5
82.3
83.8
79.2
81.6
81.9
78.0
79.5
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
77.8
80.2
88.5
84.3
85.8
83.4
91.3
87.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
85.9
82.7
83.6
82.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
80.5
81.0
n.s.
79.6
84.4
n.s.
77.5
n.s.
78.9
79.3
81.0
76.2
76.3
70.0
81.9
71.5
75.4
75.0
67.4
78.7
78.0
75.8
74.0
71.7
70.8
70.8
70.6
67.9
65.6
58.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
89.8
83.3
81.7
83.9
78.0
81.7
76.1
65.4
66.2
69.0
62.0
86.2
86.2
84.1
86.8
83.4
85.9
82.2
76.8
70.6
75.5
81.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
81.6
82.0
70.0
84.2
68.4
84.7
65.5
65.0
83.3
53.9
N/A
19b
31
21b
30
34
29
23
28
16
27
32
24
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses. @ MAP plans were not included in 2007 ‘n.s.’ means not significant. MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
19
Table 11: Timeliness of Care – Comparison by Plan Type
2007 vs. 2011
Partial
Cap
2007
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness (Always/Usually)
45 Pharmacy Services
35
36
Partial
Cap
2011
(N=889*) (N=1,307*)
%
%
84.1
78.8
P
n.s.
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
(N=216*) (N=409*)
%
%
85.3
82.5
P
2011
2007
MAP
2011
PACE vs. Partial Cap vs. MAP@
n.s.
(N=129*)
%
80.0
2011
P
P
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
COMPARISON
Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
Care Manager/Case Manager
84.9
79.0
79.5
n.s.
71.9 0.001
82.2
76.9
78.7
76.8
n.s.
n.s.
73.0
71.3
n.s.
n.s.
37a
44
43c
43a
43d
43b
Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered Nurse
Medical Supplies and Equipment
Transportation: TO the doctor
Transportation: TO Day Center
Transportation: FROM the doctor
Transportation: FROM Day Center
78.4
77.4
73.4
67.4
72.5
67.8
71.4 0.001
70.0
n.s.
70.0
n.s.
61.0
n.s.
66.0
n.s.
58.8
n.s.
80.1
83.6
81.7
80.8
81.8
81.0
77.5
80.7
77.4
79.9
76.3
78.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
69.9
70.7
67.6
60.7
64.0
60.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
42
37b
41
38
39
40
Home Delivered Meals/Meals on Wheels
Covering/On-call nurse
Social Worker
Physical Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Speech Therapist
62.0
70.8
66.5
65.3
57.1
48.7
68.0
63.6
58.1
59.5
51.9
44.0
68.1
74.1
76.9
77.3
74.4
57.1
59.7
71.3
76.7
69.5
63.9
27.3
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
67.8
56.2
63.5
46.9
N/A
N/A
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses. @ MAP plans were not included in 2007 ‘n.s.’ means not significant. MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
20
Table 12: Timely Access to Routine Appointments (within 1 month) – Comparison by Plan Type
2007 vs. 2011
Item Description
Section 2C: Access to Care - Routine
Appointments (Less than 1 month)
46 Regular Doctor
47 Dentist
49 Foot Doctor
48 Eye Care
Partial
Cap
2007
Partial
Cap
2011
(N=889*)
(N=1,307*)
%
%
60.8
46.5
49.9
48.3
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
P
2011
2007
2011
MAP
2011
PACE vs. Partial Cap vs. MAP @
P
(N=216*) (N=409*)
%
53.8
n.s.
41.3
n.s.
40.8 0.001
39.4 0.001
72.5
51.3
48.0
49.7
(N=129*)
%
%
74.6
49.3
54.8
48.4
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
58.5
60.3
47.6
46.0
P
P
COMPARISON
n.s. 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s.
n.s.
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses. @ MAP plans were not included in 2007 ‘n.s.’ means not significant. Table 13: Timely Access to Urgent Appointments (Same Day) – Comparison by Plan Type
2007 vs. 2011
Item Description
Section 2D: Access to Care - Urgent
Appointments (Same day)
50 Regular Doctor
51 Dentist
52 Eye Care
53 Foot Doctor
Partial
Cap
2007
Partial
Cap
2011
(N=889*)
(N=1,307*)
%
%
46.1
24.9
19.6
18.4
PACE
2007
P
(N=216*) (N=409*)
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
2007
2011
MAP
2011
PACE vs. Partial Cap vs. MAP @
P
%
47.7
28.5
25.9
24.4
PACE
2011
2011
66.2
22.0
25.6
20.0
(N=129*)
%
62.6
13.3
16.9
16.3
%
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
P
P
COMPARISON
44.3 0.0001 0.0001 PACE>Partial Cap
n.s. 0.001 Partial Cap>PACE
37.8
n.s.
n.s.
27.9
n.s.
n.s.
28.2
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses. @ MAP plans were not included in 2007 ‘n.s.’ means not significant. MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
21
Table 14: Quality of Care – Comparison by Current Health Status
Item
Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
(Excellent/Good)
33 Pharmacy Services
15 Regular doctor
20 Care Manager/Case Manager
19a Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
26 Medical Supplies and Equipment
21a Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered Nurse
18 Foot Doctor
17 Eye Care
25 Social Worker
22 Physical Therapist
Home Health Agency, Personal Care
19b Agency
31 Transportation Services
21b Covering/On-call nurse
30 Day Health Center Activities
34 Nutritionist
29 Meals served at the Day Health Center
23 Occupational Therapist
28 Home Delivered Meals/Meals on Wheels
16 Dentist
27 Audiology/Hearing Aids
32 Nursing Home
24 Speech Therapist
2007 vs. 2011
Very
Very
Good/Very Good/Very
Poor/Poor/ Poor/Poor/
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
2011
P
2007
2007
2011
(N =343*)
(N=494*)
(N =1,032*) (N=1,304*)
%
%
%
2007
P
Good/Very
Good vs. Very
Poor/Poor/Fair
P
%
2011
P
93.0
93.6
92.3
90.5
93.2
92.0
87.1
89.6
92.2
87.8
95.2
94.0
92.2
87.6
91.7
90.8
89.6
87.1
89.9
89.1
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
91.2
87.6
86.6
82.6
86.9
87.1
80.6
80.3
83.7
78.4
87.8
86.5
84.9
86.0
84.6
83.7
80.5
80.8
79.0
78.9
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
0.001
n.s.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
n.s.
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
n.s.
0.0001
0.001
84.5
88.3
88.6
88.6
90.1
83.2
83.3
89.2
79.1
82.1
86.5
79.5
84.6
86.4
87.7
85.8
87.9
86.3
87.2
79.8
81.8
79.5
77.4
78.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
78.9
78.6
78.5
79.2
77.7
74.3
70.7
75.1
68.5
69.5
71.2
57.8
80.3
78.8
77.5
76.4
75.6
73.4
71.9
69.7
67.9
65.1
62.4
60.3
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 0.0001
n.s.
0.001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.001
0.0001
n.s.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
n.s.
0.0001
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number of responses for
each item, and exclude not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
22
Table 15: Timeliness of Care – Comparison by Current Health Status
2007
2011
2007 vs. 2011
Very
Very
Good/Very
Good/Very Good/Very
Poor/Poor/ Poor/Poor/
Good vs. Very
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
P
P
Poor/Poor/Fair
2011
2007
2007
2011
Item Description
(N =343*)
(N=494*)
(N =1,032*) (N=1,304*)
Section 2B: Timeliness (Always/Usually)
%
%
%
%
P
P
45 Pharmacy Services
83.9
81.5
n.s.
83.5
79.1
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
35 Home Health Aide, Personal Care Aide
81.3
77.3
n.s.
84.3
79.3
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
36 Care Manager/Case Manager
80.9
73.3
n.s.
78.5
72.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
37a Regular Visiting Nurse/Registered Nurse
79.1
74.9
n.s.
79.1
71.9 0.0001
n.s.
n.s.
44 Medical Supplies and Equipment
76.8
74.8
n.s.
79.7
71.8 0.0001
43c Transportation: TO the doctor
75.0
73.3
n.s.
75.2
71.4
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
43a Transportation: TO Day Center
76.1
69.5
n.s.
73.9
68.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
43d Transportation: FROM the doctor
73.4
70.8
n.s.
73.4
68.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
43b Transportation: FROM Day Center
75.5
67.3
n.s.
74.3
68.9
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
42 Home Delivered Meals/Meals on Wheels
61.8
68.2
n.s.
69.7
65.6
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
37b Covering/On-call nurse
73.1
70.0
n.s.
72.6
63.0 0.0001
41 Social Worker
70.6
67.4
n.s.
70.3
62.6
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
38 Physical Therapist
66.4
64.9
n.s.
70.8
60.7
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
39 Occupational Therapist
57.9
58.7
n.s.
63.8
54.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
40 Speech Therapist
52.9
43.6
n.s.
49.4
39.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number
of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
23
Table 16: Timely Access to Routine Appointments (within 1 month) – Comparison by Current Health Status
2007 vs. 2011
Very
Very
Good/Very Good/Very
Poor/Poor/ Poor/Poor/
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
P
2007
2011
2007
2011
(N =343*)
(N=494*)
(N =1,032*) (N=1,304*)
2007
2011
Good/Very
Good vs. Very
Poor/Poor/Fair
P
Item Description
Section 2C: Access to Care - Routine
%
%
%
%
P
P
Appointments (Less than 1 month)
46 Regular Doctor
58.2
62.1
n.s.
66.4
57.2 0.0001
n.s.
n.s.
47 Dentist
43.5
46.9
n.s.
51.1
43.6
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
49 Foot Doctor
47.7
49.5
n.s.
51.3
42.2 0.001
n.s.
n.s.
48 Eye Care
44.4
44.3
n.s.
52.2
40.6 0.0001
* n reflects the total number of members who completed the survey. Total responses to each survey item varied; percentages were calculated on the number
of responses for each item, and exclude not applicable responses.
‘n.s.’ means not significant.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
24
Section Four: Multivariate Regression
In advance of performing multivariate regression analyses, the survey items were split into
domains to determine which member characteristics had an effect on the most important survey
questions. The domains are described in Table 17.
The following 7 independent variables (member characteristics) were used in the regressions:
- Plan type (Partially Capitated, PACE; MAP)
- Race/Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Other)
- Gender (Male, Female)
- Education (Up to some High School, High School +)
- Health Status (Very Good/Good, Very Poor/Poor/Fair)
- Living Situation (at home, alone; at home, with others; nursing home)
- Age (18-64, 65+)
Primary language spoken was excluded as an independent variable from the regression
analyses because of its correlation with the race/ethnicity variable.
The first domain is composed of only one item: MLTC plan rating (1=Excellent/Good;
0=Poor/Fair). A logistic regression was conducted to assess whether the independent variables
were associated with members’ perception of their plan.
For Domains 2 to 5, linear regressions were used to assess the relationship between the
dependent variables (domains) and the independent variables. The dependent variable is a
mean composite score, which is the average of all non-missing ratings/responses to each item
in the domain. The scales for each domain are indicated in Table 17.
For Domain 6, logistic regression was conducted to determine which subgroups are more/less
likely to have advance directives in place. The dependent variable is coded 1 if the members
responded “yes” to at least one of the following items from the survey (0 otherwise):
a) Q65 - someone from the health plan has talked to you about appointing someone to
make decisions about your health if you are unable to do so,
b) Q66 - you have a legal document appointing someone to make decisions about your
health if you are unable to do so, and
c) Q67 - the health plan has a copy of this document.
Significant results from the regression analyses are detailed in Table 17.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
25
Table 17: Results of the Regression Analyses on the Domains
Domains
Regression Results
Domain 1: MLTC Plan
Rating
[Q14]
Rating:
0=Poor/Fair;
1=Excellent/Good
Table 18 shows that the odds of a high plan rating are higher for those
who are in good health.
Domain 2: Quality of Care
[mean composite of: Q15,
Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19a, Q20,
Q21a, Q21b, Q22, Q25,
Q26, Q31, Q33]
Rating:
1=Poor;
2=Fair;
3=Good;
4=Excellent
Table 19 shows that race/ethnicity and health status had a significant
effect on the quality of care score, after adjusting for all the independent
variables:
o Hispanics and Asians gave lower ratings for quality of care than
White respondents.
o Current health status is positively associated with quality of care
rating.
Domain 3: Timeliness of
Care
[mean composite of: Q35,
Q36, Q37a, Q37b, Q38,
Q41, Q43a, Q43b, Q43c,
Q43d, Q44, Q45]
Rating:
1=Never;
2=Sometimes;
3=Usually;
4=Always
Domain 4: Access to
Routine Appointments
[mean composite of: Q46,
Q47, Q48, Q49]
Rating:
1=Less than 1 month;
2=1-3 months;
3=Longer than 3 months
Table 20 shows that plan type is the only factor that had a significant
effect on the timeliness scores, after adjusting for all the independent
variables:
o Timeliness ratings were significantly higher for PACE members
than partially capitated members.
Table 21 shows that plan type and race/ethnicity were associated with
access to routine appointment scores, after adjusting for all the
independent variables:
o PACE members were more likely to report that they had timely
access to routine appointments than partially capitated members.
o Asian respondents were less likely to report that they had timely
access to routine appointments than white respondents.
Domain 5: Access to
Urgent Appointments
[mean composite of: Q50,
Q51, Q52, Q53]
Rating:
1=Same day;
2=1-3 days;
3=4 days or longer
Domain 6: Advance
Directives
Rating:
1=At least 1 of Q65, Q66,
Q67;
0=Otherwise
Table 22 shows that access to urgent appointments is not dependent
on plan type, race/ethnicity, gender, education, health status, living
situation or age.
Table 23 displays the odds ratios, which indicate that advance
directives are more likely to be in place for members in PACE plans
(than partially capitated plans) and for members who are White (not
Asian).
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
26
Table 18: Logistic Regression on Domain 1 – Plan Rating: Excellent/Good (N=1,598)
Variables
Partially Capitated
Plan Type PACE
MAP
White
Black
Race/
Hispanic
Ethinicity
Asian
Other
Male
Female
Up to some High School
Education
High School+
Health Very poor/Poor/Fair
Status Good/Very good
At home, alone
Living
Situation At home, with others
Nursing home
18-64 yrs old
Age
65+ yrs old
Constant
Gender
Odds
Ratio
P
Reference
1.48
1.10
n.s. Partially Capitated
n.s. Partially Capitated
1.31
0.94
1.16
1.75
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
1.42
n.s. Male
0.79
n.s. Up to some High School
2.69
0.0001 Very poor/Poor/Fair
1.16
1.50
1.11
2.77
White
White
White
White
n.s. At home, alone
n.s. At home, alone
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
0.0001
C-statistic =0.640
Plan rating: 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
27
Table 19: Linear Regression on Domain 2 – Quality of Care: Scale 1-4 (N=1,576)
Variables
Partially Capitated
Plan Type PACE
MAP
Education
Health
Status
B
P
Reference
3.22
0.59
3.32
0.54
0.072
n.s. Partially Capitated
3.32
0.54
0.076
n.s. Partially Capitated
White
3.33
0.54
3.23
0.59 -0.105
n.s. White
3.11
0.67 -0.190
0.001 White
3.11
0.56 -0.171
0.0001 White
n.s. White
Other
3.26
0.61 -0.046
Male
3.20
0.59
Female
3.27
0.57
Up to some High School
3.20
0.62
High School+
3.31
0.53
Very poor/Poor/Fair
3.19
0.59
Good/Very good
3.41
0.52
At home, alone
Living
At
home, with others
Situation
Nursing home
Age
Std.
Deviation
Black
Race/
Ethinicity Hispanic
Asian
Gender
Mean
Score
0.039
n.s. Male
0.049
n.s. Up to some High School
0.205
0.0001 Very poor/Poor/Fair
3.26
0.60
3.23
0.56 -0.011
n.s. At home, alone
3.27
0.58 -0.049
n.s. At home, alone
18-64 yrs old
3.27
0.60
65+ yrs old
3.25
0.58 -0.018
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
2
Adjusted R =0.049
‘B’ coefficients represent the independent relationship of each independent variable to the prediction of the domain
(dependent variable).
Quality of Care ratings: 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
28
Table 20: Linear Regression on Domain 3 – Timeliness of Care: Scale 1-4 (N=1,542)
Variables
Partially Capitated
Plan Type PACE
MAP
Education
Health
Status
B
P
Reference
3.03
0.85
3.18
0.79
0.187
0.0001 Partially Capitated
3.03
0.91 -0.008
n.s. Partially Capitated
White
3.09
0.87
3.13
0.81
0.068
n.s. White
3.07
0.81 -0.079
n.s. White
2.96
0.74 -0.167
n.s. White
n.s. White
Other
3.01
0.89 -0.076
Male
3.07
0.80
Female
3.07
0.85 -0.014
Up to some High School
3.07
0.82
High School+
3.06
0.86 -0.039
Very poor/Poor/Fair
3.05
0.82
Good/Very good
3.10
0.90
At home, alone
Living
At
home, with others
Situation
Nursing home
Age
Std.
Deviation
Black
Race/
Ethinicity Hispanic
Asian
Gender
Mean
Score
0.027
n.s. Male
n.s. Up to some High School
n.s. Very poor/Poor/Fair
3.09
0.86
3.05
0.83 -0.016
n.s. At home, alone
2.93
0.89 -0.223
n.s. At home, alone
18-64 yrs old
3.01
0.86
65+ yrs old
3.08
0.84
0.035
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
2
Adjusted R =0.010
‘B’ coefficients represent the independent relationship of each independent variable to the prediction of the domain
(dependent variable).
Timeliness ratings: 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Usually, 4=Always
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
29
Table 21: Linear Regression on Domain 4 – Access to Routine Appointments: Scale 1-3
(N=1,406)
Variables
Partially Capitated
Plan Type PACE
MAP
Education
Health
Status
B
P
Reference
1.79
0.69
1.55
0.63 -0.218
0.0001 Partially Capitated
1.66
0.65 -0.099
n.s. Partially Capitated
White
1.60
0.67
1.78
0.65
0.139
n.s. White
1.86
0.70
0.214
n.s. White
1.87
0.69
0.234
0.0001 White
0.188
0.001 White
Other
1.85
0.67
Male
1.78
0.70
Female
1.71
0.67 -0.072
Up to some High School
1.80
0.69
High School+
1.64
0.66 -0.096
Very poor/Poor/Fair
1.74
0.67
Good/Very good
1.69
0.70 -0.035
1.72
0.68
At home, alone
Living
Situation At home, with others
Nursing home
Age
Std.
Deviation
Black
Race/
Ethinicity Hispanic
Asian
Gender
Mean
Score
n.s. Male
n.s. Up to some High School
n.s. Very poor/Poor/Fair
1.73
0.67 -0.023
n.s. At home, alone
1.69
0.71
n.s. At home, alone
18-64 yrs old
1.81
0.70
65+ yrs old
1.71
0.67 -0.066
0.052
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
2
Adjusted R =0.052
‘B’ coefficients represent the independent relationship of each independent variable to the prediction of the domain
(dependent variable).
Access to Routine Appointment ratings: 1=Less than 1 month, 2=1-3 months, 3=Longer than 3 months
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
30
Table 22: Linear Regression on Domain 5 – Access to Urgent Appointments: Scale 1-3
(N=1,184)
Variables
Partially Capitated
Reference
0.62
0.116
n.s. Partially Capitated
2.18
0.62
0.045
n.s. Partially Capitated
White
2.14
Black
2.09
0.64
0.69 -0.037
0.68 0.007
2.13
Other
2.11
0.69 -0.050
0.68 -0.014
Male
2.08
0.70
Female
2.13
0.66
Up to some High School
2.12
0.66
High School+
2.11
0.68 -0.002
Very poor/Poor/Fair
2.10
0.66
Good/Very good
2.15
0.69
2.15
0.66
2.10
3.01
0.67 -0.046
0.67 -0.148
18-64 yrs old
2.05
0.70
65+ yrs old
2.13
0.65
At home, alone
Living
Situation At home, with others
Nursing home
Age
P
2.19
Race/
Ethinicity Hispanic
Asian
Health
Status
B
0.68
MAP
Education
Std.
Deviation
2.08
Plan Type PACE
Gender
Mean
Score
2.10
0.042
0.066
0.071
n.s. White
n.s. White
n.s. White
n.s. White
n.s. Male
n.s. Up to some High School
n.s. Very poor/Poor/Fair
n.s. At home, alone
n.s. At home, alone
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
2
Adjusted R =0.005
‘B’ coefficients represent the independent relationship of each independent variable to the prediction of the domain
(dependent variable).
Access to Urgent Appointment Ratings: 1=Same day, 2=1-3 days, 3=4 days or longer
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
31
Table 23: Logistic Regression on Domain 6 - Advance Directives: Yes/No (N=1,615)
Variables
Odds
Ratio
P
Reference
Partially Capitated
Plan Type PACE
MAP
3.65
0.0001 Partially Capitated
1.52
n.s. Partially Capitated
0.91
n.s. White
0.81
n.s. White
0.40
0.0001 White
0.89
n.s. White
1.23
n.s. Male
1.36
n.s. Up to some High School
1.33
n.s. Very poor/Poor/Fair
White
Black
Race/
Ethinicity Hispanic
Asian
Other
Gender
Male
Female
Education
Up to some High School
High school+
Health
Status
Very poor/Poor/Fair
Good/Very good
At home, alone
Living
Situation At home, with others
Nursing home
Age
1.01
n.s. At home, alone
1.77
n.s. At home, alone
1.05
1.88
n.s. 18-64 yrs old
n.s.
18-64 yrs old
65+ yrs old
Constant
C-statistic =0.678
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
32
Section Five: Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall survey findings were very favorable. As Tables 24-26 indicate, the majority of MLTC
respondents are evidently satisfied with their health plan, and most would recommend their plan
to others, whether it be a partially capitated, PACE, or MAP plan. The majority of members
rated the quality of MLTC services to be good or excellent, and the majority indicated providers
and services are always or usually on time. It was encouraging to see continued high
satisfaction rates for quality and timeliness for such critical long- term care services as visiting
nurses, home health aides, and physical therapists.
The percentage of members that reported calling the plan with questions or for help, and/or with
complaints or grievances, dropped notably in the 2011 survey, with statistically significant
differences between 2007 and 2011. These findings may be indicative of some or all of the
following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
enhanced member services functions improvements in comprehensive education of plan services at enrollment more frequent care manager interaction with plan members additional language specific educational materials.
However, IPRO has observations for specific survey results, such as dental care, advance
directives, medication management, and access to routine and urgent provider visits.
Some observations to be considered by the MLTC plans for improvement are as follows:
1) Respondents continue to rate the quality of dental services lower than other highly
utilized services (Tables 5, 25).
Plans may want to review dental services, in general, for how accessible dentists are
and if members have enough dentists to choose from. Plans may want to focus on
satisfaction levels for black and Asian members, as survey results indicate that these
members appear to be more negative on dental care quality and access.
A point of note here is that several plans have been undertaking performance
improvement projects over the past two years, with dental service utilization as the
focus. Project interventions have included language and cultural initiatives, such as
language specific newsletter articles. Another noteworthy intervention is the identification
of dental providers upfront for new members and scheduling appointments within 30
days of enrollment. Two of these plans have seen improvement in annual dental visit
rates, and have made progress in increasing dental provider accessibility. A third plan
has selected dental utilization as their performance improvement project for 2011 and is
in process of implementing similar interventions. IPRO recommends that these efforts
continue across plans wherever applicable.
2) A significantly higher proportion of PACE and MAP members compared to partially
capitated members reported that their health plan had seen their prescriptions and overthe- counter medicines. These efforts are indicative of a focus on medication
management. To a certain extent, these findings are understandable as prescriptions
are a covered service for PACE and MAP plans but not for partially capitated plans
(Tables 9,24).
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
33
As care management is a primary goal across all plans, it is strongly recommended that
all plan types maintain as much of a medication management focus as possible. In this
regard, a recommendation to plans would be to investigate the need to conduct
medication compliance projects. These projects require a basic understanding of
members’ medications as an important step in effective care management. Such
projects may also serve to enhance care management by identifying possible adverse
reaction and poly-pharmacy concerns.
3) Advance directive discussions, and advance directive procurement, are more prevalent
with PACE and MAP than with partially capitated members. In general, IPRO has seen
increases in advance directive rates over the years, based upon performance
improvement project results. However, advance directive rates for the partially capitated
plans lag behind the other plan types (Tables 9, 29).
A number of partially capitated plans have been addressing this issue over the years by
undertaking performance improvement projects focusing on advance directive education
and procurement. Notable project interventions include:
a) Increased social worker involvement (language and culture specific where
applicable) b) Language and culture specific member education materials
c) Advance directive discussions during SAAM assessment visits.
d) Increased staff education (e.g. care management, interdisciplinary team) Advance directive procurement rates have improved with these interventions. IPRO
recommends continued efforts in this area.
4) A significant percentage of respondents (across all plan types) reported that they are
unable to schedule appointments with their regular doctor or PCP in a timely manner
(within 30 days), and even lower percentages were reported for dentists, eye care, and
foot doctors. Moreover, IPRO noted a declining trend in these percentages since 2007
(Tables 7, 12, 27). Percentages were somewhat higher for PACE and MAP respondents,
but all three plan types reflect room for improvement. Also, respondents who were of
poor health status in 2011 were significantly less likely to report that they had timely
access to routine appointments with providers, than the same cohort in 2007 (Table 16).
Another finding was that white respondents were significantly more likely to report more
favorably with regard to routine appointments than any other race group.
For urgent needs, a significant number of respondents indicated that same day
appointments are not possible with any of these providers (Tables 8, 28).
IPRO notes that outpatient services are not in the benefit package of the partially
capitated plans. However, all plans may wish to investigate access issues through
possibly interviewing providers to determine exactly how routine and urgent visits are
handled. Plans may also choose to interview samples of members, including members
with higher SAAM scores indicating higher levels of acuity, to obtain time intervals for
routine and urgent appointments in an effort to provide outreach to certain providers.
5) PACE members responded more favorably than partially capitated members with regard
to the quality of certain services, such as medical supplies/equipment, social workers,
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
34
nutritionists, and occupational therapists (Tables 10, 25). PACE members were also
more likely to rate the timeliness of certain services, such as medical
supplies/equipment, social workers, transportation to/from day center more positively
than partially capitated members (Tables 11,26). This could be attributed in some
instances to PACE plans providing these services directly, or through a closely affiliated
company, and therefore may be in a better position to provide oversight of the quality of
these services.
Partially capitated plans may subcontract to outside vendors for these services more
often; therefore, providing quality and timeliness oversight may be more of a challenge.
It is recommended that plans evaluate these services to see if any issues or problems
exist with specific vendors, by possibly reviewing incidence reports and complaint
/grievance logs to target specific issues.
6) A significantly lower percentage of partially capitated respondents rated care manager
and visiting nurse services as always /usually on time in 2011 than in 2007 (Tables 11,
26).
Plans may wish to investigate this, possibly through evaluating attendance and tardiness
issues directly within their staff or by determining if any issues exist where these
services may be subcontracted. A review of incidence reports and complaint and
grievance logs (at plan and vendor levels) may be warranted.
7) There were some observed language differences for some of the ratings, as discussed
in the Comparisons by Primary Language section of the report. English speaking
members were more likely than non-English speaking members (i.e. Spanish, Chinese)
to give a positive rating with regard to the quality of certain services, such as medical
supplies/equipment, eye care, social workers, dentists, physical therapists. English
speaking members were also more likely to respond more favorably with regard to
access to routine appointments with regular doctors, eye care providers, and dentists
than non-English speaking members (i.e. Spanish, Chinese). It would appear that
language barriers may be playing a role in not being satisfied with some services, and
with timely access to them.
This may be another area for plans to explore, to determine if there is limited access to
multilingual providers of these services.
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
35
APPENDIX A: FREQUENCY TABLES
Table 24: MLTC Plan Evaluation
All respondents
Item Description
Section 1: MLTC Plan Evaluation
1 MLTC plan explains services clearly
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Don't k now or not sure
2 Involved in making decisions about plan of care
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Don't k now or not sure
3 Called the plan with questions or help
Yes
No
TOTAL
4t Speak with a person quickly
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
5at Were questions answered quickly
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
444
271
103
15
833
39
53.3
32.5
12.4
1.8
430
205
130
64
829
35
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
633
389
179
23
1,224
54
51.7
31.8
14.6
1.9
114
51
32
6
203
10
56.2
25.1
15.8
3.0
213
125
41
7
386
17
55.2
32.4
10.6
1.8
135
107
31
8
281
13
48.0
38.1
11.0
2.8
80
31
12
0
123
5
65.0
25.2
9.8
0.0
693
429
166
29
1,317
62
52.6
32.6
12.6
2.2
926
545
232
30
1,733
76
53.4
31.4
13.4
1.7
51.9
24.7
15.7
7.7
626
306
213
76
1,221
52
51.3
25.1
17.4
6.2
94
60
36
13
203
10
46.3
29.6
17.7
6.4
212
107
55
18
392
12
54.1
27.3
14.0
4.6
138
77
46
25
286
6
48.3
26.9
16.1
8.7
75
29
19
2
125
3
60.0
23.2
15.2
1.6
662
342
212
102
1,318
51
50.2
25.9
16.1
7.7
913
442
287
96
1,738
67
52.5
25.4
16.5
5.5
605
262
867
69.8
30.2
750
500
1,250
60.0
40.0
146
66
212
68.9
31.1
259
143
402
64.4
35.6
200
98
298
67.1
32.9
73
44
117
62.4
37.6
951
426
1,377
69.1 1082
30.9
687
1,769
61.2
38.8
326
240
20
586
55.6
41.0
3.4
383
322
21
726
52.8
44.4
2.9
73
64
4
141
51.8
45.4
2.8
154
91
7
252
61.1
36.1
2.8
103
83
9
195
52.8
42.6
4.6
45
26
1
72
62.5
36.1
1.4
502
387
33
922
54.4
42.0
3.6
582
439
29
1,050
55.4
41.8
2.8
350
212
20
582
60.1
36.4
3.4
424
283
19
726
58.4
39.0
2.6
84
57
2
143
58.7
39.9
1.4
168
82
4
254
66.1
32.3
1.6
118
75
4
197
59.9
38.1
2.0
46
26
0
72
63.9
36.1
0.0
552
344
26
922
59.9
37.3
2.8
638
391
23
1,052
60.6
37.2
2.2
*
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
t
Items based on skip pattern
+
Member can check all that apply
++
New question in 2011
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
N
%
Statewide
2011
N
%
36
Table 24: MLTC Plan Evaluation (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 1: MLTC Plan Evaluation
5bt Were you able to understand the answers
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
6t Were you treated with politeness and respect
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
7 Called the plan with a complaint/grievance
Yes
No
TOTAL
8t Responded to in a timely manner
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
9t Were you satisfied with the response
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
10t Were you treated with politeness and respect
Always
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
*
t
+
++
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
397
172
10
579
68.6
29.7
1.7
469
243
10
722
65.0
33.7
1.4
92
46
2
140
65.7
32.9
1.4
191
56
2
249
76.7
22.5
0.8
131
60
4
195
67.2
30.8
2.1
513
67
6
586
87.5
11.4
1.0
612
95
10
717
85.4
13.2
1.4
126
16
1
143
88.1
11.2
0.7
225
26
3
254
88.6
10.2
1.2
173
21
1
195
321
539
860
37.3
62.7
346
879
1,225
28.2
71.8
90
119
209
43.1
56.9
129
271
400
32.3
67.8
160
124
28
312
51.3
39.7
9.0
165
139
26
330
50.0
42.1
7.9
53
26
6
85
62.4
30.6
7.1
76
44
9
129
130
160
23
313
41.5
51.1
7.3
132
161
33
326
40.5
49.4
10.1
42
38
6
86
48.8
44.2
7.0
243
67
7
317
76.7
21.1
2.2
247
77
7
331
74.6
23.3
2.1
70
17
0
87
80.5
19.5
0.0
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
48
25
0
73
65.8
34.2
0.0
620
278
16
914
67.8
30.4
1.8
708
324
12
1,044
67.8
31.0
1.1
88.7
10.8
0.5
68
4
0
72
94.4
5.6
0.0
812
104
8
924
87.9
11.3
0.9
905
125
13
1,043
86.8
12.0
1.2
119
172
291
40.9
59.1
26
95
121
21.5
78.5
530
830
1,360
39.0
501
61.0 1245
1,746
28.7
71.3
58.9
34.1
7.0
59
50
9
118
50.0
42.4
7.6
16
7
2
25
64.0
28.0
8.0
272
200
43
515
52.8
38.8
8.3
257
190
37
484
53.1
39.3
7.6
67
52
9
128
52.3
40.6
7.0
52
53
13
118
44.1
44.9
11.0
15
10
1
26
57.7
38.5
3.8
224
251
42
517
43.3
48.5
8.1
214
223
43
480
44.6
46.5
9.0
102
24
2
128
79.7
18.8
1.6
87
29
1
117
74.4
24.8
0.9
23
3
0
26
88.5
11.5
0.0
400
113
8
521
76.8
21.7
1.5
372
104
9
485
76.7
21.4
1.9
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
Items based on skip pattern
Member can check all that apply
New question in 2011
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
37
Table 24: MLTC Plan Evaluation (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 1: MLTC Plan Evaluation
Has asked to see all of the prescriptions/over
11++ the counter medicines
Yes
No
TOTAL
Not sure
12 Has helped to manage illness
Yes
No
Same
TOTAL
13 Would you recommend plan to others
Yes
No
TOTAL
14 How would you rate your plan
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
TOTAL
*
t
+
++
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
N
%
PACE
2007
N
%
PACE
2011
N
%
333
31
364
30
91.5
8.5
Unknown*
2007
N
%
MAP
2011
N
%
115
4
119
6
96.6
3.4
960
185
1,145
125
83.8
16.2
726
36
105
867
83.7 1,038
4.2
70
12.1 171
1,279
81.2
5.5
13.4
179
5
30
214
83.6
2.3
14.0
365
4
33
402
90.8
1.0
8.2
247
15
31
293
84.3
5.1
10.6
108
3
14
125
777
81
858
90.6 1,117
9.4 137
1,254
89.1
10.9
189
24
213
88.7
11.3
373
20
393
94.9
5.1
271
24
295
91.9
8.1
370
388
97
21
876
42.2
44.3
11.1
2.4
38.4
45.3
14.3
1.9
97
98
16
3
214
45.3
45.8
7.5
1.4
178
184
36
5
403
44.2
45.7
8.9
1.2
127
128
34
9
298
42.6
43.0
11.4
3.0
494
583
184
25
1,286
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
N
%
1408
220
1,628
161
86.5
13.5
86.4 1,152
2.4
56
11.2 166
1,374
83.8 1,511
4.1
77
12.1
218
1,806
83.7
4.3
12.1
119
7
126
94.4 1,237
5.6 129
1,366
90.6 1,609
9.4
164
1,773
90.8
9.2
62
47
15
3
127
48.8
37.0
11.8
2.4
42.8
44.2
10.6
2.4
40.4
44.8
12.9
1.8
594
614
147
33
1,388
734
814
235
33
1,816
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
Items based on skip pattern
Member can check all that apply
New question in 2011
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
38
Table 25: Quality of Care
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
15 Regular Doctor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
16 Dentist
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
17 Eye Care
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
18 Foot Doctor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
13
71
302
421
807
49
1.6
8.8
37.4
52.2
47
107
223
165
542
259
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
30
104
418
618
1,170
59
2.6
8.9
35.7
52.8
2
18
76
102
198
7
1.0
9.1
38.4
51.5
10
33
149
189
381
7
2.6
8.7
39.1
49.6
2
34
84
146
266
18
0.8
12.8
31.6
54.9
5
8
36
64
113
4
4.4
7.1
31.9
56.6
17
123
462
669
1,271
74
1.3
9.7
36.3
52.6
45
145
603
871
1,664
70
2.7
8.7
36.2
52.3
8.7
19.7
41.1
30.4
92
140
326
230
788
365
11.7
17.8
41.4
29.2
13
38
53
43
147
53
8.8
25.9
36.1
29.3
22
43
136
79
280
103
7.9
15.4
48.6
28.2
13
32
84
51
180
91
7.2
17.8
46.7
28.3
12
16
26
26
80
30
15.0
20.0
32.5
32.5
73
177
360
259
869
403
8.4
20.4
41.4
29.8
126
199
488
335
1,148
498
11.0
17.3
42.5
29.2
30
85
289
244
648
175
4.6
13.1
44.6
37.7
49
135
398
438
1,020
185
4.8
13.2
39.0
42.9
11
24
70
72
177
28
6.2
13.6
39.5
40.7
12
44
148
134
338
56
3.6
13.0
43.8
39.6
8
23
98
96
225
57
3.6
10.2
43.6
42.7
6
12
36
50
104
14
5.8
11.5
34.6
48.1
49
132
457
412
1,050
260
4.7
12.6
43.5
39.2
67
191
582
622
1,462
255
4.6
13.1
39.8
42.5
30
70
241
267
608
198
4.9
11.5
39.6
43.9
49
113
372
347
881
287
5.6
12.8
42.2
39.4
8
20
53
45
126
72
6.3
15.9
42.1
35.7
14
25
135
101
275
114
5.1
9.1
49.1
36.7
5
36
89
86
216
63
2.3
16.7
41.2
39.8
4
9
33
46
92
26
4.3
9.8
35.9
50.0
43
126
383
398
950
333
4.5
13.3
40.3
41.9
67
147
540
494
1,248
427
5.4
11.8
43.3
39.6
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
39
Table 25: Quality of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
19a Home Health Aide
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
19b Home Health Agency
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
20 Care Manager
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
21a Regular Visiting Nurse
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
22
83
231
448
784
55
2.8
10.6
29.5
57.1
35
118
326
306
785
62
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
42
102
361
604
1,109
107
3.8
9.2
32.6
54.5
6
35
65
69
175
32
3.4
20.0
37.1
39.4
12
30
127
144
313
77
3.8
9.6
40.6
46.0
11
28
91
124
254
28
4.3
11.0
35.8
48.8
2
16
27
62
107
13
1.9
15.0
25.2
57.9
39
146
387
641
1,213
115
3.2
12.0
31.9
52.8
56
148
515
810
1,529
197
3.7
9.7
33.7
53.0
4.5
15.0
41.5
39.0
62
151
423
481
1,117
100
5.6
13.5
37.9
43.1
7
25
68
57
157
47
4.5
15.9
43.3
36.3
17
31
148
112
308
83
5.5
10.1
48.1
36.4
18
30
94
99
241
45
7.5
12.4
39.0
41.1
5
20
33
53
111
9
4.5
18.0
29.7
47.7
60
173
488
462
1,183
154
5.1
14.6
41.3
39.1
84
202
604
646
1,536
192
5.5
13.2
39.3
42.1
22
74
282
413
791
45
2.8
9.4
35.7
52.2
49
112
418
553
1,132
85
4.3
9.9
36.9
48.9
2
21
69
101
193
12
1.0
10.9
35.8
52.3
12
24
148
181
365
24
3.3
6.6
40.5
49.6
6
25
92
148
271
15
2.2
9.2
33.9
54.6
0
12
34
69
115
3
0.0
10.4
29.6
60.0
30
120
443
662
1,255
72
2.4
9.6
35.3
52.7
61
148
600
803
1,612
112
3.8
9.2
37.2
49.8
27
67
278
405
777
64
3.5
8.6
35.8
52.1
45
131
445
508
1,129
101
4.0
11.6
39.4
45.0
7
14
65
103
189
16
3.7
7.4
34.4
54.5
12
18
126
183
339
55
3.5
5.3
37.2
54.0
6
21
86
130
243
41
2.5
8.6
35.4
53.5
5
14
31
65
115
8
4.3
12.2
27.0
56.5
40
102
429
638
1,209
121
3.3
8.4
35.5
52.8
62
163
602
756
1,583
164
3.9
10.3
38.0
47.8
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
40
Table 25: Quality of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
21b Covering/On Call Nurse
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
22 Physical Therapist
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
23 Occupational Therapist
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
24 Speech Therapist
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
37
73
231
191
532
273
7.0
13.7
43.4
35.9
52
119
345
260
776
387
6.7
15.3
44.5
33.5
6
20
67
63
156
45
3.8
12.8
42.9
40.4
7
30
119
113
269
117
2.6
11.2
44.2
42.0
7
23
78
80
188
86
3.7
12.2
41.5
42.6
24
57
163
145
389
406
6.2
14.7
41.9
37.3
40
76
226
222
564
577
7.1
13.5
40.1
39.4
7
16
59
65
147
52
4.8
10.9
40.1
44.2
10
24
111
120
265
121
3.8
9.1
41.9
45.3
7
21
68
55
151
130
22
35
75
58
190
581
11.6
18.4
39.5
30.5
44
40
117
87
288
799
15.3
13.9
40.6
30.2
5
12
32
44
93
101
5.4
12.9
34.4
47.3
9
16
71
81
177
198
5.1
9.0
40.1
45.8
19
12
41
23
95
665
20.0
12.6
43.2
24.2
39
22
56
31
148
939
26.4
14.9
37.8
20.9
3
8
13
5
29
159
10.3
27.6
44.8
17.2
6
3
21
19
49
319
12.2
6.1
42.9
38.8
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
5
10
35
33
83
34
6.0
12.0
42.2
39.8
50
116
376
334
876
404
5.7
13.2
42.9
38.1
64
159
499
406
1,128
538
5.7
14.1
44.2
36.0
4.6
13.9
45.0
36.4
4
5
19
24
52
57
7.7
9.6
36.5
46.2
38
94
290
265
687
588
5.5
13.7
42.2
38.6
54
105
356
366
881
755
6.1
11.9
40.4
41.5
7
13
29
28
77
192
9.1
16.9
37.7
36.4
2
2
10
12
26
78
7.7
7.7
38.5
46.2
34
60
136
130
360
874
9.4
16.7
37.8
36.1
55
58
198
180
491
1075
11.2
11.8
40.3
36.7
5
5
5
5
20
242
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
2
1
3
7
13
88
15.4
7.7
23.1
53.8
27
25
59
33
144
1066
18.8
17.4
41.0
22.9
47
26
80
57
210
1346
22.4
12.4
38.1
27.1
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
41
Table 25: Quality of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
25 Social Worker
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
26 Medical Supplies and Equipment
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
27 Audiology / Hearing Aids
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
28 Home Delivered Meals / Meals on Wheels
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
29
62
210
262
563
230
5.2
11.0
37.3
46.5
55
110
294
290
749
384
7.3
14.7
39.3
38.7
5
17
58
111
191
12
2.6
8.9
30.4
58.1
11
19
118
198
346
39
3.2
5.5
34.1
57.2
4
21
85
101
211
66
1.9
10.0
40.3
47.9
28
58
255
330
671
148
4.2
8.6
38.0
49.2
43
102
347
441
933
231
4.6
10.9
37.2
47.3
5
11
58
94
168
35
3.0
6.5
34.5
56.0
7
17
137
182
343
43
2.0
5.0
39.9
53.1
5
18
90
125
238
40
23
21
78
57
179
599
12.8
11.7
43.6
31.8
48
37
111
69
265
853
18.1
14.0
41.9
26.0
10
13
25
20
68
123
14.7
19.1
36.8
29.4
12
23
43
41
119
256
10.1
19.3
36.1
34.5
16
8
53
56
133
635
12.0
6.0
39.8
42.1
35
27
60
90
212
911
16.5
12.7
28.3
42.5
2
9
18
17
46
145
4.3
19.6
39.1
37.0
6
7
37
23
73
299
8.2
9.6
50.7
31.5
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
5
7
17
44
73
37
6.8
9.6
23.3
60.3
38
100
353
474
965
308
3.9
10.4
36.6
49.1
71
136
429
532
1,168
460
6.1
11.6
36.7
45.5
2.1
7.6
37.8
52.5
7
7
29
54
97
22
7.2
7.2
29.9
55.7
38
87
403
549
1,077
223
3.5
8.1
37.4
51.0
57
126
513
677
1,373
296
4.2
9.2
37.4
49.3
7
11
26
18
62
204
11.3
17.7
41.9
29.0
4
1
11
14
30
75
13.3
3.3
36.7
46.7
40
45
129
95
309
926
12.9
14.6
41.7
30.7
64
61
165
124
414
1,184
15.5
14.7
39.9
30.0
7
10
27
25
69
201
10.1
14.5
39.1
36.2
8
2
5
14
29
79
27.6
6.9
17.2
48.3
25
27
98
98
248
981
10.1
10.9
39.5
39.5
49
36
102
127
314
1,289
15.6
11.5
32.5
40.4
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
42
Table 25: Quality of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
29 Meals served at Day Health Center
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
30 Day Health Center Activities
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
31 Transportation Services
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
32 Nursing Home
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
16
22
63
59
160
605
10.0
13.8
39.4
36.9
31
36
88
82
237
881
13.1
15.2
37.1
34.6
5
32
70
61
168
43
3.0
19.0
41.7
36.3
15
38
171
94
318
69
4.7
11.9
53.8
29.6
11
15
49
36
111
163
9.9
13.5
44.1
32.4
18
17
87
62
184
588
9.8
9.2
47.3
33.7
23
41
104
97
265
853
8.7
15.5
39.2
36.6
4
25
53
77
159
48
2.5
15.7
33.3
48.4
12
38
145
119
314
69
3.8
12.1
46.2
37.9
5
12
56
39
112
161
37
104
254
273
668
153
5.5
15.6
38.0
40.9
70
141
353
423
987
210
7.1
14.3
35.8
42.9
12
8
78
98
196
14
6.1
4.1
39.8
50.0
18
33
140
180
371
23
4.9
8.9
37.7
48.5
11
9
35
25
80
672
13.8
11.3
43.8
31.3
28
25
53
48
154
935
18.2
16.2
34.4
31.2
3
6
8
12
29
158
10.3
20.7
27.6
41.4
7
5
17
20
49
316
14.3
10.2
34.7
40.8
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
5
1
7
6
19
86
26.3
5.3
36.8
31.6
32
69
182
156
439
811
7.3
15.7
41.5
35.5
51
75
266
182
574
1,036
8.9
13.1
46.3
31.7
4.5
10.7
50.0
34.8
3
3
5
9
20
84
15.0
15.0
25.0
45.0
27
54
196
178
455
797
5.9
11.9
43.1
39.1
38
82
254
225
599
1,006
6.3
13.7
42.4
37.6
17
27
92
94
230
53
7.4
11.7
40.0
40.9
7
10
26
49
92
28
7.6
10.9
28.3
53.3
66
139
424
465
1,094
220
6.0
12.7
38.8
42.5
95
184
519
652
1,450
261
6.6
12.7
35.8
45.0
6
5
19
19
49
210
12.2
10.2
38.8
38.8
5
1
1
6
13
88
38.5
7.7
7.7
46.2
20
20
62
56
158
1040
12.7
12.7
39.2
35.4
40
31
71
74
216
1339
18.5
14.4
32.9
34.3
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
43
Table 25: Quality of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2A: Quality of Care Providers
33 Pharmacy Services
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
34 Nutritionist
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
14
43
277
403
737
90
1.9
5.8
37.6
54.7
20
35
103
73
231
544
8.7
15.2
44.6
31.6
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
21
99
376
544
1,040
158
2.0
9.5
36.2
52.3
3
12
73
109
197
10
1.5
6.1
37.1
55.3
8
15
141
199
363
27
2.2
4.1
38.8
54.8
4
23
91
131
249
32
1.6
9.2
36.5
52.6
2
10
28
71
111
7
1.8
9.0
25.2
64.0
21
78
441
643
1,183
132
1.8
6.6
37.3
54.4
31
124
545
814
1,514
192
2.0
8.2
36.0
53.8
32
65
161
115
373
757
8.6
17.4
43.2
30.8
4
15
54
45
118
78
3.4
12.7
45.8
38.1
13
19
113
97
242
144
5.4
7.9
46.7
40.1
3
11
57
48
119
150
2.5
9.2
47.9
40.3
1
5
16
16
38
66
2.6
13.2
42.1
42.1
27
61
214
166
468
772
5.8
13.0
45.7
35.5
46
89
290
228
653
967
7.0
13.6
44.4
34.9
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
44
Table 26: Timeliness of Care
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness
35 Home Health Aide
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
36 Care Manager / Case Manager
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
37a Regular Visiting Nurse
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
37b Covering/On Call Nurse
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
469
150
62
48
729
86
64.3
20.6
8.5
6.6
585
189
117
82
973
175
60.1
19.4
12.0
8.4
73
61
22
7
163
35
44.8
37.4
13.5
4.3
142
102
47
19
310
79
45.8
32.9
15.2
6.1
124
75
35
13
247
33
50.2
30.4
14.2
5.3
50
23
15
12
100
18
50.0
23.0
15.0
12.0
666
286
119
68
1,139
154
58.5
25.1
10.4
6.0
777
314
179
113
1,383
272
56.2
22.7
12.9
8.2
391
176
92
59
718
88
54.5
24.5
12.8
8.2
455
254
167
110
986
167
46.1
25.8
16.9
11.2
86
47
30
10
173
21
49.7
27.2
17.3
5.8
152
99
45
31
327
51
46.5
30.3
13.8
9.5
122
72
28
20
242
30
50.4
29.8
11.6
8.3
48
19
10
17
94
14
51.1
20.2
10.6
18.1
599
295
150
89
1,133
139
52.9
26.0
13.2
7.9
655
372
222
158
1,407
232
46.6
26.4
15.8
11.2
433
158
108
55
754
85
57.4
21.0
14.3
7.3
520
241
208
96
1,065
135
48.8
22.6
19.5
9.0
98
55
24
14
191
17
51.3
28.8
12.6
7.3
171
81
40
33
325
66
52.6
24.9
12.3
10.2
133
58
35
14
240
43
55.4
24.2
14.6
5.8
59
13
17
14
103
14
57.3
12.6
16.5
13.6
664
271
167
83
1,185
145
56.0
22.9
14.1
7.0
750
335
265
143
1,493
215
50.2
22.4
17.7
9.6
216
138
86
60
500
306
43.2
27.6
17.2
12.0
302
166
164
104
736
425
41.0
22.6
22.3
14.1
72
42
27
13
154
42
46.8
27.3
17.5
8.4
115
74
46
30
265
119
43.4
27.9
17.4
11.3
78
56
29
12
175
100
44.6
32.0
16.6
6.9
27
14
22
10
73
35
37.0
19.2
30.1
13.7
366
236
142
85
829
448
44.1
28.5
17.1
10.3
444
254
232
144
1,074
579
41.3
23.6
21.6
13.4
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
45
Table 26: Timeliness of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness
38 Physical Therapist
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
39 Occupational Therapist
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
40 Speech Therapist
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
41 Social Worker
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
124
75
60
46
305
480
40.7
24.6
19.7
15.1
171
102
98
88
459
656
37.3
22.2
21.4
19.2
52
40
16
11
119
75
43.7
33.6
13.4
9.2
92
61
39
28
220
163
41.8
27.7
17.7
12.7
60
33
22
14
129
143
46.5
25.6
17.1
10.9
46
39
27
37
149
626
30.9
26.2
18.1
24.8
81
46
42
76
245
848
33.1
18.8
17.1
31.0
35
23
12
8
78
111
44.9
29.5
15.4
10.3
52
40
23
29
144
230
36.1
27.8
16.0
20.1
22
17
13
14
66
199
21
16
9
30
76
685
27.6
21.1
11.8
39.5
41
18
19
56
134
954
30.6
13.4
14.2
41.8
9
7
7
5
28
158
32.1
25.0
25.0
17.9
6
3
4
20
33
337
18.2
9.1
12.1
60.6
214
117
107
60
498
284
43.0
23.5
21.5
12.0
248
138
181
97
664
464
37.3
20.8
27.3
14.6
95
41
26
15
177
23
53.7
23.2
14.7
8.5
178
69
42
33
322
63
55.3
21.4
13.0
10.2
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
13
2
10
7
32
72
40.6
6.3
31.3
21.9
236
148
98
71
553
698
42.7
26.8
17.7
12.8
276
165
147
123
711
891
38.8
23.2
20.7
17.3
33.3
25.8
19.7
21.2
8
1
6
3
18
82
44.4
5.6
33.3
16.7
103
79
52
59
293
936
35.2
27.0
17.7
20.1
141
87
71
108
407
1,160
34.6
21.4
17.4
26.5
7
3
6
7
23
238
30.4
13.0
26.1
30.4
4
0
4
3
11
90
36.4
0.0
36.4
27.3
37
26
22
42
127
1081
29.1
20.5
17.3
33.1
51
21
27
79
178
1,381
28.7
11.8
15.2
44.4
82
48
32
14
176
100
46.6
27.3
18.2
8.0
30
10
10
13
63
40
47.6
15.9
15.9
20.6
391
206
165
89
851
407
45.9
24.2
19.4
10.5
456
217
233
143
1,049
567
43.5
20.7
22.2
13.6
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
46
Table 26: Timeliness of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness
42 Home Delivered Meals / Meals on Wheels
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
43a Transportation TO Day Center
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
43b Transportation FROM Day Center
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
43c Transportation TO the doctor
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
68
27
19
39
153
621
44.4
17.6
12.4
25.5
99
52
21
50
222
878
44.6
23.4
9.5
22.5
24
6
7
7
44
149
54.5
13.6
15.9
15.9
29
14
12
17
72
304
40.3
19.4
16.7
23.6
30
19
6
8
63
202
47.6
30.2
9.5
12.7
98
32
26
37
193
477
50.8
16.6
13.5
19.2
164
64
74
72
374
657
43.9
17.1
19.8
19.3
74
39
15
12
140
47
52.9
27.9
10.7
8.6
151
80
33
25
289
98
52.2
27.7
11.4
8.7
48
27
14
7
96
143
89
31
26
31
177
462
50.3
17.5
14.7
17.5
122
48
57
62
289
698
42.2
16.6
19.7
21.5
71
40
13
13
137
42
51.8
29.2
9.5
9.5
145
82
34
27
288
96
50.3
28.5
11.8
9.4
316
129
113
48
606
164
52.1
21.3
18.6
7.9
425
200
150
117
892
253
47.6
22.4
16.8
13.1
93
50
23
9
175
17
53.1
28.6
13.1
5.1
178
90
49
29
346
43
51.4
26.0
14.2
8.4
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
17
2
4
5
28
78
60.7
7.1
14.3
17.9
122
52
32
54
260
972
46.9
20.0
12.3
20.8
145
68
37
72
322
1,260
45.0
21.1
11.5
22.4
50.0
28.1
14.6
7.3
14
3
7
4
28
63
50.0
10.7
25.0
14.3
220
98
55
56
429
667
51.3
22.8
12.8
13.1
329
147
114
101
691
818
47.6
21.3
16.5
14.6
51
22
15
7
95
140
53.7
23.2
15.8
7.4
10
2
6
2
20
69
50.0
10.0
30.0
10.0
211
93
54
51
409
644
51.6
22.7
13.2
12.5
277
132
97
91
597
863
46.4
22.1
16.2
15.2
99
52
31
19
201
67
49.3
25.9
15.4
9.5
38
14
15
10
77
35
49.4
18.2
19.5
13.0
508
231
167
76
982
248
51.7
23.5
17.0
7.7
641
304
214
156
1,315
331
48.7
23.1
16.3
11.9
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
47
Table 26: Timeliness of Care (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2B: Timeliness
43d Transportation FROM the doctor
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
44 Medical Supplies and Equipment
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
45 Pharmacy Services
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
292
138
107
56
593
162
49.2
23.3
18.0
9.4
400
193
177
128
898
243
44.5
21.5
19.7
14.3
93
46
20
11
170
16
54.7
27.1
11.8
6.5
170
93
50
32
345
41
49.3
27.0
14.5
9.3
91
46
40
20
197
68
46.2
23.4
20.3
10.2
315
152
76
61
604
195
52.2
25.2
12.6
10.1
431
187
152
113
883
271
48.8
21.2
17.2
12.8
81
46
18
7
152
44
53.3
30.3
11.8
4.6
170
81
30
30
311
71
54.7
26.0
9.6
9.6
113
61
26
17
217
58
449
139
55
56
699
115
64.2
19.9
7.9
8.0
562
208
100
107
977
199
57.5
21.3
10.2
11.0
121
41
18
10
190
9
63.7
21.6
9.5
5.3
202
90
31
31
354
26
57.1
25.4
8.8
8.8
139
52
26
22
239
38
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
34
14
17
10
75
33
45.3
18.7
22.7
13.3
476
230
167
87
960
246
49.6
24.0
17.4
9.1
604
300
244
170
1,318
317
45.8
22.8
18.5
12.9
52.1
28.1
12.0
7.8
47
11
13
11
82
31
57.3
13.4
15.9
13.4
509
259
120
85
973
297
52.3
26.6
12.3
8.7
648
279
195
154
1,276
373
50.8
21.9
15.3
12.1
58.2
21.8
10.9
9.2
64
16
10
10
100
15
64.0
16.0
10.0
10.0
709
232
99
88
1,128
162
62.9
20.6
8.8
7.8
828
314
141
148
1,431
240
57.9
21.9
9.9
10.3
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
48
Table 27: Access to Care (Routine Appointments)
All respondents
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
Item Description
Section 2C: Access to Care - Routine Appointment
46 Regular Doctor
Less than 1 month
454
1 to 3 months
240
Longer than 3 months
53
TOTAL
747
Not Applicable
92
47 Dentist
Less than 1 month
200
1 to 3 months
108
Longer than 3 months
122
TOTAL
430
Not Applicable
359
48 Eye Care
Less than 1 month
267
1 to 3 months
114
Longer than 3 months
172
TOTAL
553
Not Applicable
269
49 Foot Doctor
Less than 1 month
261
1 to 3 months
174
Longer than 3 months
88
TOTAL
523
Not Applicable
290
*
%
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
N
%
60.8
32.1
7.1
571
376
115
1,062
116
53.8
35.4
10.8
111
34
8
153
43
72.5
22.2
5.2
235
64
16
315
73
74.6
20.3
5.1
160
56
14
230
55
69.6
24.3
6.1
62
34
10
106
9
58.5
32.1
9.4
725
330
75
1,130
190
64.2
29.2
6.6
868
474
141
1,483
198
58.5
32.0
9.5
46.5
25.1
28.4
261
151
220
632
502
41.3
23.9
34.8
58
33
22
113
76
51.3
29.2
19.5
109
63
49
221
162
49.3
28.5
22.2
76
41
24
141
128
53.9
29.1
17.0
38
10
15
63
45
60.3
15.9
23.8
334
182
168
684
563
48.8
26.6
24.6
408
224
284
916
709
44.5
24.5
31.0
48.3
20.6
31.1
337
209
309
855
316
39.4
24.4
36.1
72
36
37
145
55
49.7
24.8
25.5
123
72
59
254
130
48.4
28.3
23.2
102
45
35
182
94
56.0
24.7
19.2
40
25
22
87
28
46.0
28.7
25.3
441
195
244
880
418
50.1
22.2
27.7
500
306
390
1,196
474
41.8
25.6
32.6
49.9
33.3
16.8
307
265
181
753
399
40.8
35.2
24.0
49
34
19
102
90
48.0
33.3
18.6
114
59
35
208
179
54.8
28.4
16.8
92
69
12
173
101
53.2
39.9
6.9
39
26
17
82
36
47.6
31.7
20.7
402
277
119
798
481
50.4
34.7
14.9
460
350
233
1,043
614
44.1
33.6
22.3
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
49
Table 28: Access to Care (Urgent Appointments)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 2D: Access to Care - Urgent Appointment
50 Regular Doctor
Same day
1 to 3 days
4 days or longer
TOTAL
Not Applicable
51 Dentist
Same day
1 to 3 days
4 days or longer
TOTAL
Not Applicable
52 Eye Care
Same day
1 to 3 days
4 days or longer
TOTAL
Not Applicable
53 Foot Doctor
Same day
1 to 3 days
4 days or longer
TOTAL
Not Applicable
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
263
214
93
570
249
46.1
37.5
16.3
409
311
137
857
324
47.7
36.3
16.0
90
39
7
136
64
66.2
28.7
5.1
181
92
16
289
97
62.6
31.8
5.5
105
67
19
191
87
55.0
35.1
9.9
69
106
102
277
512
24.9
38.3
36.8
129
157
167
453
691
28.5
34.7
36.9
18
36
28
82
110
22.0
43.9
34.1
21
78
59
158
218
13.3
49.4
37.3
16
35
39
90
172
68
126
153
347
449
19.6
36.3
44.1
157
206
244
607
559
25.9
33.9
40.2
23
31
36
90
105
25.6
34.4
40.0
30
82
66
178
201
16.9
46.1
37.1
66
148
145
359
444
18.4
41.2
40.4
130
198
204
532
618
24.4
37.2
38.3
14
28
28
70
122
20.0
40.0
40.0
26
77
57
160
222
16.3
48.1
35.6
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
39
39
10
88
29
44.3
44.3
11.4
458
320
119
897
400
51.1
35.7
13.3
629
442
163
1,234
450
51.0
35.8
13.2
17.8
38.9
43.3
17
22
6
45
65
37.8
48.9
13.3
103
177
169
449
794
22.9
39.4
37.6
167
257
232
656
974
25.5
39.2
35.4
18
43
56
117
154
15.4
36.8
47.9
19
27
22
68
47
27.9
39.7
32.4
109
200
245
554
708
19.7
36.1
44.2
206
315
332
853
807
24.2
36.9
38.9
22
45
53
120
155
18.3
37.5
44.2
20
31
20
71
42
28.2
43.7
28.2
102
221
226
549
721
18.6
40.3
41.2
176
306
281
763
882
23.1
40.1
36.8
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
50
Table 29: About You
All respondents
Item Description
Section 3: About You
54 Rate your current state of health
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
TOTAL
55 What is your gender
Male
Female
TOTAL
56 What is your age
18-44
45-64
65-74
75-84
over 85
TOTAL
57a Are you Hispanic/Latino origin
Yes
No
TOTAL
57b+ What is your race
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Other
TOTAL
*
+
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
50
230
380
186
24
870
5.7
26.4
43.7
21.4
2.8
232
657
889
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
101
302
558
263
45
1,269
8.0
23.8
44.0
20.7
3.5
11
47
95
51
7
211
5.2
22.3
45.0
24.2
3.3
15
76
160
130
21
402
3.7
18.9
39.8
32.3
5.2
19
56
144
62
13
294
6.5
19.0
49.0
21.1
4.4
5
29
58
23
12
127
3.9
22.8
45.7
18.1
9.4
26.1
73.9
332
940
1,272
26.1
73.9
55
161
216
25.5
74.5
89
312
401
22.2
77.8
49
243
292
16.8
83.2
31
94
125
33
131
173
289
263
889
3.7
14.7
19.5
32.5
29.6
40
260
245
413
316
1,274
3.1
20.4
19.2
32.4
24.8
0
11
54
70
81
216
0.0
5.1
25.0
32.4
37.5
0
26
87
139
149
401
0.0
6.5
21.7
34.7
37.2
7
37
50
96
105
295
2.4
12.5
16.9
32.5
35.6
268
571
839
31.9
68.1
390
822
1,212
32.2
67.8
36
163
199
18.1
81.9
34
359
393
8.7
91.3
23
260
283
12
67
146
1
450
55
717
1.7
9.3
20.4
0.1
62.8
7.7
38
176
266
7
541
156
1,135
3.3
15.5
23.4
0.6
47.7
13.7
2
52
16
2
119
6
196
1.0
26.5
8.2
1.0
60.7
3.1
8
70
61
1
250
16
391
2.0
17.9
15.6
0.3
63.9
4.1
6
8
66
2
192
13
283
Statewide
2007
N
80
333
619
299
44
1,375
%
5.8
24.2
45.0
21.7
3.2
Statewide
2011
N
%
121
407
776
416
78
1,798
6.7
22.6
43.2
23.1
4.3
24.8 336
75.2 1,061
1,397
24.1 452
75.9 1,346
1,798
25.1
74.9
3
14
48
34
26
125
2.4
11.2
38.4
27.2
20.8
40
179
277
455
449
1,400
2.9
12.8
19.8
32.5
32.1
43
300
380
586
491
1,800
2.4
16.7
21.1
32.6
27.3
8.1
91.9
40
78
118
33.9
66.1
327
994
1,321
24.8 464
75.2 1,259
1,723
26.9
73.1
2.1
2.8
23.3
0.7
67.8
4.6
9
1
29
1
71
13
114
7.9
0.9
25.4
0.9
62.3
11.4
20
127
228
5
761
74
1,196
1.7
10.6
19.1
0.4
63.6
6.2
3.4
15.1
21.7
0.5
52.6
11.3
55
247
356
9
862
185
1,640
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
Member can check all that apply
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
51
Table 29: About You (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 3: About You
58 Primary language spoken at home
English
Spanish
Russian
Chinese
Other
TOTAL
59 Education level completed
8th grade or less
Some high school, did not graduate
High school graduate or GED
Some college or 2 year degree
4 year college graduate
More than 4 year college degree
TOTAL
60 Where do you live
At home
Nursing home
TOTAL
61t Do you live
Alone
With a family member or friend
With other than a family member or friend
TOTAL
62 Did someone help you complete this survey
Yes
No
TOTAL
*
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
498
221
58
54
43
874
57.0
25.3
6.6
6.2
4.9
276
170
224
94
47
31
842
32.8
20.2
26.6
11.2
5.6
3.7
N
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
MAP
2011
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
636
307
102
147
53
1,245
51.1
24.7
8.2
11.8
4.3
113
33
10
41
11
208
54.3
15.9
4.8
19.7
5.3
287
29
17
57
13
403
71.2
7.2
4.2
14.1
3.2
262
13
0
4
17
296
88.5
4.4
0.0
1.4
5.7
86
33
1
0
5
125
68.8
26.4
0.8
0.0
4.0
873
267
68
99
71
1,378
63.4 1009
19.4 369
4.9 120
7.2 204
5.2
71
1,773
56.9
20.8
6.8
11.5
4.0
442
221
286
156
74
48
1,227
36.0
18.0
23.3
12.7
6.0
3.9
78
36
55
18
7
10
204
38.2
17.6
27.0
8.8
3.4
4.9
119
75
121
39
22
17
393
30.3
19.1
30.8
9.9
5.6
4.3
83
45
98
34
19
8
287
28.9
15.7
34.1
11.8
6.6
2.8
43
27
31
14
4
3
122
35.2
22.1
25.4
11.5
3.3
2.5
437
251
377
146
73
49
1,333
32.8
18.8
28.3
11.0
5.5
3.7
604
323
438
209
100
68
1,742
34.7
18.5
25.1
12.0
5.7
3.9
844
27
871
96.9 1,239
3.1
45
1,284
96.5
3.5
196
15
211
92.9
7.1
359
40
399
90.0
10.0
265
29
294
90.1
9.9
123
2
125
98.4 1,305
1.6
71
1,376
94.8 1,721
5.2
87
1,808
95.2
4.8
385
411
37
833
46.2
49.3
4.4
584
582
49
1,215
48.1
47.9
4.0
88
98
6
192
45.8
51.0
3.1
189
148
15
352
53.7
42.0
4.3
151
89
18
258
58.5
34.5
7.0
73
44
4
121
60.3
36.4
3.3
624
598
61
1,283
48.6
46.6
4.8
846
774
68
1,688
50.1
45.9
4.0
604
270
874
69.1
30.9
832
441
1,273
65.4
34.6
144
68
212
67.9
32.1
283
123
406
69.7
30.3
213
83
296
72.0
28.0
75
50
125
60.0
40.0
961
421
1,382
69.5 1,190
30.5 614
1,804
66.0
34.0
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
52
Table 29: About You (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 3: About You
63t+ Who helped you
Family member
Friend
Home Care Aide
Care Manager or Visiting Nurse
Other
TOTAL
64t+ How did this person help you
Read the questions to me
Wrote down the answers that I gave
Answered the questions for me
Translated into my language
Helped in some other way
TOTAL
Has health plan talked to you about appointing
65++ someone to make decisions about your health if
you are unable to do so
Yes
No
Not sure
TOTAL
Do you have a legal document appointing
66++ someone to make decisions about your health
care if you are unable to do so
Yes
No
Not sure
TOTAL
*
t
+
++
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
PACE
2007
PACE
2011
Unknown*
2007
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
384
35
102
22
41
584
65.8
6.0
17.5
3.8
7.0
485
102
155
56
119
808
60.0
12.6
19.2
6.9
14.7
106
7
1
5
23
142
74.6
4.9
0.7
3.5
16.2
169
39
9
24
62
272
62.1
14.3
3.3
8.8
22.8
125
13
18
35
16
207
60.4
6.3
8.7
16.9
7.7
305
275
199
83
37
592
51.5
46.5
33.6
14.0
6.3
502
391
201
121
79
804
62.4
48.6
25.0
15.0
9.8
76
60
50
21
6
143
53.1
42.0
35.0
14.7
4.2
154
129
102
45
18
276
55.8
46.7
37.0
16.3
6.5
107
108
80
19
12
211
50.7
51.2
37.9
9.0
5.7
712
361
169
1,242
57.3
29.1
13.6
310
58
30
398
645
444
186
1,275
50.6
34.8
14.6
334
39
29
402
MAP
2011
N
Statewide
2007
Statewide
2011
%
N
%
N
%
41
2
19
4
12
73
56.2
2.7
26.0
5.5
16.4
615
55
121
62
80
933
65.9
5.9
13.0
6.6
8.6
695
143
183
84
193
1,153
60.3
12.4
15.9
7.3
16.7
47
36
16
7
4
73
64.4
49.3
21.9
9.6
5.5
488
443
329
123
55
946
51.6
46.8
34.8
13.0
5.8
703
556
319
173
101
1,153
61.0
48.2
27.7
15.0
8.8
77.9
14.6
7.5
80
33
10
123
65.0
26.8
8.1
1,102
452
209
1,763
62.5
25.6
11.9
83.1
9.7
7.2
86
32
7
125
68.8
25.6
5.6
1,065
515
222
1,802
59.1
28.6
12.3
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
Items based on skip pattern
Member can check all that apply
New question in 2011
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
53
Table 29: About You (continued)
All respondents
Item Description
Section 3: About You
Does the health plan have a copy of this
67t++
document
Yes
No
Not sure
TOTAL
*
t
+
++
Partial Cap Partial Cap
2007
2011
N
%
N
%
349
133
152
634
55.0
21.0
24.0
PACE
2007
N
%
PACE
2011
N
%
250
22
53
325
76.9
6.8
16.3
Unknown*
2007
N
%
MAP
2011
N
33
20
33
86
%
38.4
23.3
38.4
Statewide
2007
N
%
Statewide
2011
N
632
175
238
1,045
%
60.5
16.7
22.8
'Unknown' plan includes members with incorrect/unknown identifiers in 2007 survey
Items based on skip pattern
Member can check all that apply
New question in 2011
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
54
APPENDIX B: SURVEY TOOL
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
55
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
56
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
57
MLTC 2011 Member Satisfaction Survey Report – FINAL
58