4.3 Article

Defining Rural for Veterans' Health Care Planning

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 301-309

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00298.x

关键词

health care policy; rural definitions; veterans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) devised an algorithm to classify veterans as Urban, Rural, or Highly Rural residents. To understand the policy implications of the VHA scheme, we compared its categories to 3 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 4 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) geographical categories. Method: Using residence information for VHA health care enrollees, we compared urban-rural classifications under the VHA, OMB, and RUCA schemes; the distributions of rural enrollees across VHA health care networks (Veterans Integrated Service Networks [VISNs]); and how each scheme indicates whether VHA standards for travel time to care are met for the most rural veterans. Results: VHA's Highly Rural and Urban categories are much smaller than the most rural or most urban categories in the other schemes, while its Rural category is much larger than their intermediate categories. Most Highly Rural veterans live in VISNs serving the Rocky Mountains and Alaska. Veterans defined as the most rural by RUCA or OMB are distributed more evenly across most VISNs. Nearly all urban enrollees live within VHA standards for travel time to access VHA care; so do most enrollees defined by RUCA or OMB as the most rural. Only half of Highly Rural enrollees, however, live within an hour of primary care, and 70% must travel more than 2 hours to acute care or 4 hours to tertiary care. Conclusions: VHA's Rural category is very large and broadly dispersed; policy makers should supplement analyses of Rural veterans' health care needs with more detailed breakdowns. Most of VHA's Highly Rural enrollees live in the western United States where distances to care are great and alternative delivery systems may be needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据