{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01978021978021978, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.04424778761062, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Consumer reactions to the Wisconsin Partnership Program and its parent, the Program for All-Inclusive Care of the Elderly (PACE).

PURPOSE
To compare enrollees in the Wisconsin Partnership Program (WPP), a Program for All-inclusive Care of the Elderly (PACE) variant designed to allow clients to use their regular primary care physician, with PACE enrollees in two programs operated by the two Wisconsin agencies.


DESIGN AND METHODS
All enrollees in both programs were included in the sample. Enrollees were interviewed in person. Family members were interviewed by telephone. Questions compared disability levels and satisfaction.


RESULTS
The WPP clients were generally less disabled than the PACE enrollees. The levels of satisfaction among both clients and family members were essentially comparable. The use of advance directives was higher than in the general population but did not differ across the programs.


IMPLICATIONS
WPP may be a valuable alternative to the rigid PACE approach, which may make enrollment difficult. However, a problem may lie in the limited participation of physicians. On average, the primary care physicians had only about six clients each. This level of involvement is insufficient to motivate them to change their practice patterns to accommodate this more comprehensive and integrated approach of care of frail older persons.