Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett
{"title":"\"我们如何强迫消费者接受六次就诊?在医疗补助收费服务下,以人为本的护理所面临的窘境和策略。","authors":"Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett","doi":"10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the \"consumer first\" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the \"real work\" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16424,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice","volume":"8 1","pages":"79-101"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6812544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"How do we force six visits on a consumer?\\\": Street-level dilemmas and strategies for person-centered care under Medicaid fee-for-service.\",\"authors\":\"Emmy Tiderington, Victoria Stanhope, Deborah Padgett\",\"doi\":\"10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the \\\"consumer first\\\" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the \\\"real work\\\" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16424,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"79-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6812544/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-abqz-4q92","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
"How do we force six visits on a consumer?": Street-level dilemmas and strategies for person-centered care under Medicaid fee-for-service.
This qualitative study examines the delivery of person-centered care in Medicaid-funded supportive housing for adults with serious mental illness. While much work has been done to promote the uptake of a person-centered approach in healthcare, less is known about how this approach functions in homeless services and supportive housing where many individuals with mental health issues receive rehabilitative services. A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were collected from a purposeful sample of 35 frontline providers. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Boytazis' thematic analysis. Three principle themes characterize the dilemmas experienced by street-level workers in these programs: (1) Putting the "consumer first" vs. achieving maximum billing; (2) Doing the "real work" vs. paperwork; and (3) Juggling clinical supervision vs. administrative oversight. In order to meet the demands of Medicaid, as well as the expectation for person-centered care delivery, providers enacted several discretionary strategies at the street-level: (1) Staying late and taking work home; (2) Padding the numbers; (3) Offering service recipients small choices; (4) Redirecting small talk to get to billable goal talk; and (5) Keeping consumers home. Findings highlight tensions between the accountability-focused fee-for-service model and the prioritization of consumer choice and individualization of services in person-centered care delivery.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice is devoted to the publication of peer-reviewed articles addressing substantive, managerial issues in marketing. In the context of developing, enhancing, and disseminating marketing knowledge, JMTP publishes both conceptual and empirical work, so long as the work provides strong implications for the managerial practice of marketing. Unlike other marketing journals that may be more focused on specific methodological approaches, deal with theoretical issues without regard to application, or represent various subfields of marketing, JMTP is positioned as a general marketing journal affording a quality outlet for more managerially-oriented research across the scope of the field.