Amerigroup Provider Satisfaction Louisiana 2016 Results€¦ · Looking Beyond the Expected Amerigroup Provider Satisfaction Louisiana 2016 Results Prepared by: DSS Research Tammy

Looking Beyond the Expected

Amerigroup

Provider Satisfaction

Louisiana

2016 Results

Prepared by:

DSS Research

Tammy Austin

[email protected]

Prepared for:

Anthem, Inc.November 2016

http://www.facebook.com/dssresearch

http://www.facebook.com/dssresearch

http://twitter.com/DSSResearch

http://twitter.com/DSSResearch

http://www.linkedin.com/company/46434?trk=tyah

http://www.linkedin.com/company/46434?trk=tyah

http://blog.dssresearch.com/

http://blog.dssresearch.com/

Anthem, Inc. | Amerigroup Provider Satisfaction – LA | November 2016 dssresearch.com2

Table of contents

Background and objectives 3

Methodology 4

Executive summary 5

Detailed findings

Overall satisfaction 9

Claims processing and provider reimbursement 11

Utilization Management 12

Quality Management 13

Disease Management Centralized Care Unit (DMCCU) 16

Local health plan provider services 21

Communication and technology 23

Continuity and coordination of care 25

Respondent profile 29

Appendix: Correlation analysis 30


Background and objectives

Background. Anthem, Inc. has contracted with DSS Research to conduct provider satisfaction surveys

for each market. This research can be used to provide rational direction for efforts to strengthen provider

relationships.

Objectives. This research is designed to:

• Gauge satisfaction with Amerigroup overall and in the following areas:

− Provider enrollment process and complaint systems.

− Claims processing and provider reimbursement.

− Utilization Management.

− Quality Management.

− Disease Management Centralized Care Unit (DMCCU).

− Local health plan provider services.

− Communication and technology.

− Continuity and coordination of care.

• Identify changes in results from 2015 to 2016.


Methodology

Questionnaire. Anthem, Inc. developed the survey instrument. The survey was designed for mail,

telephone and Internet administration.

Data collection. Data collection information is detailed in the table below.

Sample design.

• Qualified respondents. The population surveyed includes providers affiliated or contracted with

Amerigroup.

• Sample source. Anthem, Inc. supplied the sample, including names and contact information, for

providers.

• Sample size and response rate.

Data processing and tabulation. DSS processed all completed surveys and produced detailed tables

that summarize the results.

Advanced analytics. Details regarding the correlation analysis are provided in the appendix.

Percentages lower than 5.0% are not labeled in charts or graphs where space does not permit.

Data collection details

Initial mailing July 22, 2016

Follow-up mailing August 12, 2016

Follow-up phone calls to non-responders September 2-23, 2016

Sample size Total undeliverable

recordsCompletes Response rate

Adjusted

response rate

1,000 77 93 9.3% 10.1%


Executive summary

Overall, the satisfaction composite score increased slightly among Louisiana providers.

• 78% are very or somewhat satisfied with Amerigroup overall and 82% are satisfied with the provider enrollment

process.

• A significantly higher percentage than in 2015 are satisfied with the provider complaint systems (73% vs. 57%).

• These changes resulted in a slight increase in the overall satisfaction composite score (78% vs. 72%). The

composite is the average of the scores for the three high-level satisfaction measures mentioned above.

Correlation analysis identifies several measures that are strongly associated with overall satisfaction.1

• Obtaining support towards Patient Centered Medical Home implementation has the highest correlation to overall

satisfaction, but with a score of 78%, satisfaction with Amerigroup performance on this measure is lower than on

many other measures.

• Among the remaining highly-correlated measures:

− Scores are highest for satisfaction with the accuracy and timeliness of claims payments and the clarity of the

remittance advice (94%, 93% and 91%, respectively).

− Satisfaction scores on these measures have the most room to improve:

The provider orientation and training process (71%).

The timeliness, clarity and accuracy of information exchange and the sufficiency of information to

coordinate care (scores range from 70% to 73%).

The provider complaint systems (73%).

In addition to the provider complaint systems, several other measures also increased significantly.

• The utilization management composite (83% vs. 73%), as well as three measures that make up that composite.

• The quality management composite (77% vs. 63%), as well as two measures that make up that composite.

• The local health plan provider services composite (80% vs. 69%), as well as one of the measures that make up that

composite.

• The quality of case management services (83% vs. 73%).

• Satisfaction with the accuracy of claims payments (94% vs. 86%).

• Several measures of usage and interest in the DMCCU programs.

• The frequency with which providers receive communication from hospitals, behavioral health facilities and other

practitioners (PCPs, specialists and behavioral health practitioners).

Note 1: See the correlation chart (illustrated on the following page). See the appendix for further explanation of correlation.


Executive summary

Correlation chart for overall satisfaction with Amerigroup

Lower

Higher

Lower HigherCorrelation

Note 1: See following page for legend detail.

C&R

UM

QM

QC

DMCCU

PS

C&T

CoC

EP

Complaints

SatisActionTM key driver

statistical modeling

analysis not performed

due to a low number of

completed surveys.


Executive summary

Claims processing and provider reimbursement (C&R)

Q1a.Timeliness of claims payment

Q1b.Accuracy of claims payment

Q1c.Clarity of the remittance advice

Utilization Management (UM)

Q2a.Obtaining precertification/authorization for members

Q2b.Efficiency of the UM process overall

Q2c.Timeliness of response to concerns

Q2d.Obtaining support

Quality Management (QM)

Q3c.Responsiveness during appeals process

Q4.Rating of HEDIS education

Quality care initiatives (QC)

Q5a.List of members needing services

Q5b. Seeing only members

Q5c. Provider incentive payments

Q5d. Appointment scheduling portal

Q5e. Educational fax blasts

Q5f. Periodic mailings

Disease Management Centralized Care Unit (DMCCU)

Q7aa.Telephonic assistance provided by staff

Q7ab.Member interventions by staff

Q7ac. Written program materials

Q7ad. Timing of distribution of program materials

Q7ae. Mode of delivery of program materials

Q7af. Frequency of delivery of program materials

Q7ag. Communications provided by case managers

Q7b. Helpfulness of staff providing services

Q7c. Helpfulness of Clinical Practice Guidelines in managing patients

Local health plan provider services (PS)

Q13a.Provider orientation and training process

Q13b. Information in the provider manual

Q13c. Quality of educational information

Communication and technology (C&T)

Q15a.Provider manuals

Q15b. Provider newsletters

Q15c.General provider communications

Continuity and coordination of care (CoC)

Q17a. Timeliness of information exchange

Q17b. Accuracy of information exchange

Q17c. Clarity of information exchange

Q17d. Sufficiency of information to coordinate care

Enrollment process (EP)

Q24.Satisfaction with provider enrollment process

Complaint systems (Complaints)

Q25.Satisfaction with provider complaint systems

The dependent variable is:

Q23.Overall satisfaction with Amerigroup

Correlation chart legend detail

Highlighted items have a correlation of 0.500 or higher.


2016

2015

An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level. * New in 2016.

Executive summary

Composite summary

Very/Somewhat satisfied


Excellent/Very good/Good

Excellent/Good




Very satisfied/Satisfied

Claims

Processing and

Provider

Reimbursement

(n=83)

(n=284)

Utilization

Management

(n=90)

(n=281)

Quality

Management

(n=88)

(n=283)

Quality Care

Initiatives*

(n=88)


Overall

Satisfaction

(n=92)

(n=293)

Disease

Management

Centralized

Care Unit

(n=85)

(n=245)

Local Health

Plan Provider

Services

(n=89)

(n=270)

Communication

and

Technology

(n=88)

(n=273)

Continuity and

Coordination of

Care

(n=88)

(n=229)

88.9%

92.6%

71.5%

77.7%

72.7%

82.9%

62.5%

76.6%

81.1%

81.6%

81.3%

68.9%

79.6%

82.3%

83.1%

72.9%

71.6%

h

h

h


5.4%7.5%

12.0% 10.9%

41.3% 39.6%

37.0% 38.2%

78.3% 77.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

Overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction with Amerigroup is stable among providers in Louisiana

Overall satisfaction with Amerigroup

(n=92) (n=293)

Q23. Please rate your overall satisfaction with Amerigroup. An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Neither

Somewhat

dissatisfied

Very

dissatisfied

Top 2 box:


Overall satisfaction

Satisfaction with the provider enrollment process is stable, while satisfaction with the complaint systems

increased significantly.

Satisfaction with other provider services

Provider enrollment process Provider complaint systems

Q24. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the provider enrollment process. Q25. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the provider complaint systems. An arrow (hi) indicates

a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

14.6% 15.3%

44.9% 39.9%

37.1% 39.6%

82.0% 79.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015(n=89) (n=288)

Very

satisfied

Somewhat

satisfied

Neither

Somewhat

dissatisfied

Very

dissatisfied

5.7%

21.6%

33.2%

45.5%

34.3%

27.3% 23.0%

72.7% 57.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015(n=88) (n=283)

Top 2

box:

Top 2

box: h

i


Composite (n=83) 88.9%

Accuracy of claims payment (n=82) 85.7%

Timeliness of claims payment (n=83) 89.7%

Clarity of the remittance advice (n=79) 91.4%

Claims processing and provider reimbursement

Satisfaction increased significantly for the accuracy of claims payments and slightly for the timeliness of

claims payments, resulting in a slight increase in the average.

Satisfaction with claims payments and remittance advice

6.3% 31.6%

33.7%

39.0%

34.8%

59.5%

59.0%

54.9%

57.8%

91.1%

92.8%

93.9%

92.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Verydissatisfied

Somewhatdissatisfied

Neither Somewhatsatisfied

Verysatisfied

Top 2 box:

2016 2015

Q1. How satisfied are you with Amerigroup performance in these areas: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

h


Utilization Management

Satisfaction with the utilization management process increased significantly. Satisfaction with obtaining

support towards Patient Centered Medical Home implementation, a new measure this year, has the most

room for improvement.

Satisfaction with Utilization Management process

Q2. Please rate your satisfaction with: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level. * New in 2016.


Efficiency of the Amerigroup

Utilization Management

process overall

(n=87) 74.4%

Timeliness of the Amerigroup

medical director's response

to your concerns

(n=78) 70.8%

Obtaining precertification

and/or authorization for

Amerigroup members

(n=86) 72.7%

Obtaining support towards

Patient Centered Medical Home

implementation*

(n=74)6.8%

5.8%

6.8%

5.8%

5.1%

5.7%

5.9%

8.1%

7.7%

6.3%

41.9%

39.5%

41.0%

46.0%

42.1%

36.5%

44.2%

43.6%

39.1%

40.8%

78.4%

83.7%

84.6%

85.1%

82.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Verydissatisfied



Verysatisfied

Top 2 box:

2016 2015

h

h

h

h



Responsiveness during

the medical necessity

appeals process

(n=73) 63.1%

Members' understanding

of their benefits(n=88) 63.7%

Members' understanding

of preventive care and

wellness programs

(n=84) 60.6%

Quality Management

Satisfaction with all of these measures increased, two significantly so, resulting in a significant increase

in the average.

Ratings of experiences with Amerigroup

Q3. Please rate your experience with Amerigroup: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

11.9%

12.5%

5.5%

10.0%

16.7%

11.4%

12.3%

13.5%

26.2%

30.7%

37.0%

31.3%

26.2%

26.1%

24.7%

25.7%

19.0%

19.3%

20.5%

19.6%

71.4%

76.1%

82.2%

76.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Top 3 box:

2016 2015

h

h

h


Quality Management

A slightly higher percentage than in 2015 gave Amerigroup a rating of excellent, very good or good for

the education provided about how to maximize HEDIS performance.

Rating of HEDIS® education

5.3%

9.2%13.7%

33.3%

33.6%

34.5%29.4%

18.4% 17.9%

86.2% 80.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

(n=87) (n=262)

Top 3

box:

HEDIS is a registered trademark of the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Q4. How would you describe the education provided to you by Amerigroup on data collection and reporting to maximize your HEDIS® performance? An arrow (hi) indicates a

significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

Excellent

Very

good

Good

Fair

Poor


Quality Management

Overall, more than eight in 10 rated these quality care initiatives as excellent or good.

Rating of quality care initiatives*

Q5. We have implemented several provider-focused improvement initiatives as part of our performance improvement projects. How beneficial are these interventions in helping you

provide quality care? * New in 2016.

Composite (n=88)

Monthly list of members needing

services from Amerigroup reps(n=80)

Educational fax blasts

on specific clinical topics(n=66)

Periodic letter mailings that include

lists of members needing services(n=67)

Setting aside all or part of the day

to see only Amerigroup members(n=50)

Appointment scheduling portal

(MyHealth-Direct)(n=54)

Provider incentive payments for

helping members get needed care(n=72) 9.7%

11.1%

12.0%

6.1%

6.3%

8.3%

12.5%

9.3%

8.0%

13.4%

10.6%

10.0%

10.6%

59.7%

61.1%

64.0%

55.2%

62.1%

57.5%

59.9%

18.1%

18.5%

16.0%

26.9%

21.2%

26.3%

21.2%

77.8%

79.6%

80.0%

82.1%

83.3%

83.8%

81.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poor Fair Good Excellent Top 2 box:

2016


Disease Management Centralized Care Unit (DMCCU)

Usage and interest in many of these programs increased significantly.

DMCCU programs

Programs in which provider enrolled patients Providers want more program information about …

55.3%

49.4%

44.7%

58.8%

41.2%

35.3%

35.3%

28.2%

29.4%

29.4%

31.8%

30.6%

23.5%

37.3%

41.4%

35.4%

39.2%

25.9%

19.8%

23.6%

19.0%

13.7%

19.4%

19.4%

22.4%

43.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Q6. In which program(s) did you enroll your patients? Q11. Please check the DMCCU programs you would like more information about: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different

result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

49.3%

47.9%

41.1%

41.1%

34.2%

31.5%

28.8%

26.0%

23.3%

21.9%

20.5%

20.5%

37.0%

23.8%

29.8%

24.2%

21.8%

13.3%

11.7%

17.7%

8.1%

7.3%

12.9%

10.1%

10.1%

55.6%

0%20%40%60%80%100%

2016

(n=73)

2015

(n=248)

2016

(n=85)

2015

(n=263)

h

i

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

i

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Asthma

Diabetes

Hypertension

Obesity

Major depressive

disorder

Bipolar disorder

COPD

HIV/AIDS

Schizophrenia

CHF

CAD

Substance use

disorder (SUD)

None

h

h


DMCCU

A slightly higher percentage than in 2015 indicated that patient quality of life has improved since

enrollment in an Amerigroup DMCCU program.

Overall ratings of DMCCU programs

Patient quality of life has …

93.1% 95.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

Impact of disease management programs

(% Positive)

5.7%

35.8%41.4%

34.0%

33.1%

24.5%18.8%

58.5% 51.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

Top 2

box:

Improved

greatly

Improved

some

Remained

the same

Declined

some

Declined

greatly

(n=53) (n=133)(n=72) (n=191)

In 2016, 7.5% indicated that program exposure

has not been long enough to measure changes.

Q10. Do you perceive disease management programs as having a positive or negative impact on a patient’s health status relative to their condition? Q8. In general, since enrollment

in the Amerigroup DMCCU program(s), has patient quality of life … An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.


5.6%

62.5%56.5%

16.7%26.1%

12.5% 10.1%

29.2% 36.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

86.5%83.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

DMCCU

A slightly lower percentage than in 2015 indicated that Amerigroup DMCCU programs are better than

other plans, but a slightly higher percentage are likely to recommend the programs to other providers.

Overall ratings of DMCCU programs (cont’d)

Would recommend to other providers

(% Yes)

Amerigroup comparison to other plans

(n=74) (n=190)(n=72) (n=207)

Top 2

box:

Much

better

Better

Same as

Worse

Much

worse

Q12. How does the Amerigroup DMCCU compare to other Medicaid/Medicare Advantage plans? Q9. Would you recommend the Amerigroup DMCCU program(s) to other providers?

An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.


DMCCU

A slightly higher percentage than in 2015 rated Amerigroup highly for the helpfulness of the Clinical

Practice Guidelines.

Rating of experience with DMCCU elements


Helpfulness of Amerigroup

Clinical Practice Guidelines in

managing your patients

(n=81) 79.5%

Satisfaction with helpfulness of

staff providing DMCCU services(n=72) 80.1%8.3%

6.3%

12.5%

9.9%

12.5%

43.1%

44.4%

41.4%

16.7%

21.0%

18.3%

19.4%

19.8%

21.6%

79.2%

85.2%

81.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


2016 2015

Q7. Please rate your experience with: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.


Telephonic assistance

provided by staff(n=81) 83.0%

Member interventions by staff (n=77) 82.0%

Written program materials (n=77) 82.6%

Timing of distribution

of program materials(n=77) 81.7%

Mode of delivery


Frequency of delivery


Communications provided by

DMCCU case managers(n=72) 81.0%

DMCCU

None of these measures shifted significantly.

Rating of experience with DMCCU elements (cont’d)

9.7%

6.4%

5.1%

5.2%

6.5%

6.2%

15.3%

15.4%

14.1%

13.0%

14.3%

10.4%

7.4%

40.3%

39.7%

41.0%

42.9%

39.0%

42.9%

39.5%

18.1%

16.7%

15.4%

16.9%

15.6%

20.8%

23.5%

16.7%

21.8%

24.4%

22.1%

27.3%

19.5%

23.5%

75.0%

78.2%

80.8%

81.8%

81.8%

83.1%

86.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent

Usefulness of the overall program in:

Q7. Please rate your experience with: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

Top 3 box:

2016 2015


Local health plan provider services

Satisfaction increased significantly for the information received in the provider manual and slightly for the

provider orientation and training process, resulting in a significant increase in the average.

Satisfaction with services

Q13. How satisfied were you with the following: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level. * New in 2016.


Information you received

in the provider manual(n=85) 74.9%

Quality of educational

information provided

to you and your staff*

(n=85)

Provider orientation

and training process(n=85) 62.8%22.4%

9.4%

9.4%

13.7%

50.6%

60.0%

61.2%

57.3%

20.0%

23.5%

23.5%

22.4%

70.6%

83.5%

84.7%

79.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Verydissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Verysatisfied

Top 2 box:

2016 2015

h

h


Local health plan provider services

On average, more than one-third of office practice staff participated in cultural competency training in the

last year.

Staff who participated in cultural competency training*

35.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016

Q14. Within the last year, what percentage of office practice staff (administrative, clerical, and clinical) has participated in any type of cultural competency training? * New in 2016.

(Average percentage)

(n=68)



Provider manuals (n=84) 83.7%

Provider newsletters (n=83) 84.2%

General provider

communications(n=87) 79.2%

Communication and technology

Ratings of these Amerigroup materials are stable.

Ratings of Amerigroup materials

Q15. Please rate the quality and effectiveness of the following Amerigroup materials: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95%

confidence level.

6.9%

5.5%

12.6%

10.8%

10.7%

11.4%

37.9%

36.1%

36.9%

37.0%

14.9%

20.5%

20.2%

18.6%

27.6%

27.7%

27.4%

27.6%

80.5%

84.3%

84.5%

83.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


2016 2015


Communication and technology

Among those who would like to be contacted by a health plan representative, significantly higher

percentages than in 2015 would like to discuss their participation in a Quality Incentive Program. Interest

in other topics also increased, but not by significant margins.

Information providers want to discuss

(All mentions)2016 2015

Base: (n=48) (n=101)

Participation in a Quality Incentive Program 77.1%h 59.4%

Why HEDIS measures are important 45.8% 38.6%

Innovative programs my practice employs 37.5% 28.7%

Initiation of electronic claims processing 37.5% 31.7%

Providing after-hours care in my practice 31.3% 25.7%

Contact's name 4.2% 0.0%

Claims/denials/billing/payments (slow, inaccurate) 4.2% 2.0%

Fee schedule/reimbursement 2.1% 2.0%

Enrollment/credentialing/contracts 2.1% 0.0%

Network mentions 2.1% 1.0%

Need program information 2.1% 0.0%

Patient health issues 2.1% 0.0%

Interpreter/language barrier 2.1% 0.0%

Coordination of care 2.1% 0.0%

No need for contact/none/nothing/N/A 2.1%i 12.9%

Q26. I would like to be contacted by a health plan representative to discuss: An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.


7.2% 6.0%

9.6%20.9%

36.1%

37.0%

31.3%

22.6%

15.7% 13.6%

83.1% 73.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

5.8%

65.1% 59.1%

19.3% 24.8%

9.6% 8.7%

28.9% 33.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

Continuity and coordination of care

The rating of the quality of Amerigroup case management services increased significantly, but a slightly

lower percentage than in 2015 indicated that Amerigroup coordination of care is better than that of other

plans.

Ratings of experience with continuity and coordination of care

Quality of case management services Amerigroup comparison to other plans

(n=83) (n=235)

Top 3

box:

Excellent

Very

good

Good

Fair

Poor

(n=83) (n=242)

Top 2

box:

Much

better

Better

Same as

Worse

Much

worse

Q18. Please rate your experience with the quality of case management services regarding continuity and coordination of care. Q19. How does the Amerigroup continuity and

coordination of care compare to other Medicaid/Medicare Advantage plans? An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

h

i



Satisfaction with the clarity of information exchange decreased slightly.

Satisfaction with information exchange


Sufficiency of information

to coordinate care(n=85) 73.8%

Accuracy (n=86) 74.4%

Clarity (n=87) 75.8%

Timeliness (n=87) 67.5%5.7%

5.7%

5.9%

5.5%

20.7%

19.5%

18.6%

17.6%

19.1%

44.8%

37.9%

39.5%

37.6%

40.0%

25.3%

33.3%

32.6%

35.3%

31.6%

70.1%

71.3%

72.1%

72.9%

71.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Verydissatisfied



Verysatisfied

Top 2 box:

2016 2015

Q17. Please rate your experience with Amerigroup in the following dimensions of information exchange for the coordination of medical and behavioral health care: An arrow (hi)

indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.


Hospitals (n=87) 77.2%

PCPs (n=85) 75.1%

Specialty care practitioners

(not including behavioral health)(n=86) 74.4%

Outpatient therapy providers (n=86) 68.1%

Home health agencies (n=83) 69.0%

Behavioral health facilities (n=81) 57.5%

Behavioral health practitioners (n=86) 53.2%

Rehabilitation facilities (n=79) 55.5%

Skilled nursing facilities (n=75) 57.2%


Communications from most of these sources increased, five significantly so.

Frequency of receiving verbal/written communication from other providers

28.0%

24.1%

15.1%

17.3%

12.0%

12.8%

9.3%

6.9%

16.0%

19.0%

12.8%

9.9%

13.3%

9.3%

9.4%

5.7%

21.3%

26.6%

34.9%

40.7%

27.7%

40.7%

25.6%

27.1%

25.3%

20.0%

17.7%

19.8%

17.3%

20.5%

20.9%

32.6%

24.7%

32.2%

14.7%

12.7%

17.4%

14.8%

26.5%

16.3%

27.9%

35.3%

29.9%

56.0%

57.0%

72.1%

72.8%

74.7%

77.9%

86.0%

87.1%

87.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

Q16. How often do you receive verbal and/or written communication from other practitioners and providers regarding your patients? An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different

result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

Top 3 box:

2016 2015

h

h

h

h

h


8.0% 5.9%

10.0%9.3%

22.0% 23.7%

26.0%22.9%

34.0% 38.1%

82.0% 84.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015

16.7% 20.0%

66.7%

40.0%

16.7%

40.0%

100% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 2015


More than eight in 10 PCPs indicated that they typically initiate contact with behavioral health providers

to coordinate care, and all six of the behavioral health providers who responded indicated that they

typically initiate contact with a patient’s PCP.

Frequency of contact

Contact patient’s BH provider Contact patient’s PCP

Q20. When you are informed by an Amerigroup member that he or she is actively receiving services from a behavioral health provider, how often do you contact that provider to

coordinate care? Q21. When you receive an Amerigroup member as a new patient, how often do you contact the member's PCP to coordinate care? An arrow (hi) indicates a

significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level. A caret (^) indicates a base size smaller than 20. Interpret results with caution.

Among PCPs only Among behavioral health care providers only

(n=50) (n=118) (n=6)^ (n=5)^

Top 3

box:

Top 3

box:

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never


Respondent profile

An arrow (hi) indicates a significantly different result from the previous year at the 95% confidence level.

Individual completing survey 2016 2015Base: (n=90) (n=276)

Office Manager 57.8% 47.8%

Physician (PCP) 15.6% 12.7%

Behavioral Health Practitioner 1.1% 1.4%

Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) 1.1% 0.0%

Physician (Specialist) 0.0%i 6.2%

Physician (OB/GYN) 0.0%i 1.4%

Other Staff 24.4% 30.4%

Population servedBase: (n=93) (n=297)

All Medicaid 100% 100%

Provider typeBase: (n=93) (n=297)

BH 8.6%h 2.4%

OB/GYN 9.7% 10.8%

PCP 63.4%h 49.5%

Specialist 18.3%i 37.4%

Practice typeBase: (n=93) (n=297)

Group 94.6%h 76.8%

Solo 5.4%i 23.2%


Appendix: Correlation analysis


Correlation analysis

Correlation values describe the degree of linear association between two variables in numeric terms and

can range from -1 (perfect negative correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation). The closer the value

is to +/- 1, the stronger the degree of linear association between the two variables. If the value is equal to

zero, then there is no linear association. In general, values of .5000 or higher (and -.5000 or lower)

suggest high correlation between the variables compared.

The table on the following page lists the significant correlation values between each of the survey

attribute ratings and the overall satisfaction rating of Amerigroup, as well as their top-two or top-three-box

score.


Correlation analysis

Top-three-box scores are shaded gray

Correlation

value

Top-two-box/

Top-three-box scores

Q23. Overall satisfaction with Amerigroup

Q2d Obtaining support 0.792 78.4%

Q17d Sufficiency of information to coordinate care 0.780 72.9%

Q17a Timeliness of information exchange 0.766 70.1%

Q25 Satisfaction with provider complaint systems 0.761 72.7%

Q7aa Telephonic assistance provided by staff 0.757 86.4%

Q2b Efficiency of the UM process overall 0.752 85.1%

Q17c Clarity of information exchange 0.748 71.3%

Q17b Accuracy of information exchange 0.742 72.1%

Q7ac Written program materials 0.724 81.8%

Q4 Rating of HEDIS education 0.716 86.2%

Q15c General provider communications 0.706 80.5%

Q5d Appointment scheduling portal 0.704 79.6%

Q13a Provider orientation and training process 0.697 70.6%

Q13c Quality of educational information 0.686 83.5%

Q5e Educational fax blasts 0.679 83.3%

Q2c Timeliness of response to concerns 0.676 84.6%

Q15a Provider manuals 0.675 84.5%

Q5b Seeing only members 0.670 80.0%

Q7c Helpfulness of Clinical Practice Guidelines in managing patients 0.665 85.2%

Q1b Accuracy of claims payment 0.665 93.9%

Q5c Provider incentive payments 0.664 77.8%

Q7b Helpfulness of staff providing services 0.662 79.2%

Q24 Satisfaction with provider enrollment process 0.659 82.0%

Q7af Frequency of delivery of program materials 0.656 78.2%

Q7ae Mode of delivery of program materials 0.653 80.8%

Q7ab Member interventions by staff 0.649 83.1%

Q3c Responsiveness during appeals process 0.647 82.2%

Q7ad Timing of distribution of program materials 0.645 81.8%

Q15b Provider newsletters 0.643 84.3%

Q2a Obtaining precertification/authorization for members 0.641 83.7%

Q7ag Communications provided by case managers 0.629 75.0%

Q13b Information in the provider manual 0.621 84.7%

Q1a Timeliness of claims payment 0.620 92.8%

Q1c Clarity of the remittance advice 0.531 91.1%

Q5f Periodic mailings 0.480 82.1%

Q5a List of members needing services 0.436 83.8%

Highlighted items have a correlation of 0.500 or higher.

Documents

Amerigroup Provider Satisfaction Louisiana 2016 Results€¦ · Looking Beyond the Expected Amerigroup Provider Satisfaction Louisiana 2016 Results Prepared by: DSS Research Tammy