• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

选择健康保险计划的异同。

Similarities and differences in choosing health plans.

作者信息

Farley Short Pamela, McCormack Lauren, Hibbard Judith, Shaul James A, Harris-Kojetin Lauren, Fox Michael H, Damiano Peter, Uhrig Jennifer D, Cleary Paul D

机构信息

Pennsylvania State University, 116 Henderson Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2002 Apr;40(4):289-302. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200204000-00005.

DOI:10.1097/00005650-200204000-00005
PMID:12021685
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, consumers have multiple health insurance options. New information is being developed to help consumers with these choices.

OBJECTIVES

To study similarities and differences in how the publicly and privately insured choose health plans. To explore the effect of traditional enrollment materials and reports developed by the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) on consumers' perceptions and decision-making.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Using data from eight CAHPS demonstrations, we tested for significant differences across consumers with employer-sponsored insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare.

SUBJECTS

Approximately 10,000 consumers with employer-sponsored, Medicaid, and Medicare health plans.

MEASURES

Perceptions of the health plan selection process, use of information sources, and reactions to and use of traditional enrollment materials and CAHPS reports.

RESULTS

Most consumers with all types of insurance thought that choosing a health plan was important and obtained information from multiple sources. Choosing a plan was more difficult for Medicare and Medicaid recipients than for the privately insured. When choosing a plan, Medicaid recipients cared most about convenience and access, whereas the privately insured emphasized providers and costs. The percentage of consumers who looked at and remembered the CAHPS report varied widely from 24% to 77%. In all but one of the demonstration sites, most consumers spent less than 30 minutes looking at the CAHPS report.

CONCLUSIONS

Group sponsors and the developers of information interventions such as CAHPS may need to invest in developing and testing different reporting approaches for Medicare, Medicaid, and privately insured consumers.

摘要

背景

消费者拥有多种健康保险选择的情况日益增多。正在开发新的信息以帮助消费者做出这些选择。

目的

研究公共保险和私人保险的参保者在选择健康计划方式上的异同。探讨由健康计划消费者评估研究(CAHPS)编制的传统参保材料和报告对消费者认知及决策的影响。

研究设计

利用八项CAHPS示范项目的数据,我们对参加雇主赞助保险、医疗补助和医疗保险的消费者之间的显著差异进行了测试。

研究对象

约10000名参加雇主赞助、医疗补助和医疗保险健康计划的消费者。

测量指标

对健康计划选择过程的认知、信息来源的使用,以及对传统参保材料和CAHPS报告的反应及使用情况。

结果

大多数各类保险的消费者都认为选择健康计划很重要,并从多个来源获取信息。医疗保险和医疗补助领取者选择计划比私人保险参保者更困难。选择计划时,医疗补助领取者最关心便利性和可及性,而私人保险参保者则强调医疗服务提供者和成本。查看并记住CAHPS报告的消费者比例差异很大,从24%到77%不等。在除一个示范地点外的所有地点,大多数消费者查看CAHPS报告的时间不到30分钟。

结论

团体赞助商以及CAHPS等信息干预措施的开发者可能需要投入精力,为医疗保险、医疗补助和私人保险消费者开发和测试不同的报告方式。

相似文献

1
Similarities and differences in choosing health plans.选择健康保险计划的异同。
Med Care. 2002 Apr;40(4):289-302. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200204000-00005.
2
Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.CAHPS 1.0调查指标的心理测量特性。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS22-31. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00003.
3
Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.让调查结果易于向消费者报告:报告需求如何指导“医疗保健计划消费者评估(CAHPS)”中的调查设计。医疗保健计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS32-40. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00004.
4
Creating more effective health plan quality reports for consumers: lessons from a synthesis of qualitative testing.为消费者创建更有效的健康计划质量报告:定性测试综合分析的经验教训
Health Serv Res. 2001 Jul;36(3):447-76.
5
Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection?消费者对健康计划质量的报告是否会影响健康计划的选择?
Health Serv Res. 2000 Dec;35(5 Pt 1):933-47.
6
Consumer perspectives on information needs for health plan choice.消费者对健康计划选择信息需求的看法。
Health Care Financ Rev. 1996 Fall;18(1):55-73.
7
Effect of CAHPS performance information on health plan choices by Iowa Medicaid beneficiaries.
Med Care Res Rev. 2002 Sep;59(3):319-36. doi: 10.1177/107755870205900305.
8
Adjusting Pediatric Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) Scores to Ensure Fair Comparison of Health Plan Performances.调整儿童健康计划消费者评估研究(CAHPS)分数以确保健康计划绩效的公平比较。
Med Care. 2005 Jan;43(1):44-52.
9
Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.结语:CAHPS示范与评估的早期经验教训。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS97-105.
10
Health plan decision making with new medicare information materials.利用新的医疗保险信息材料进行健康计划决策。
Health Serv Res. 2001 Jul;36(3):531-54.

引用本文的文献

1
Knowledge of health insurance benefits among male expatriates in Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯男性外籍人士对健康保险福利的了解情况。
Saudi Med J. 2017 Jun;38(6):642-653. doi: 10.15537/smj.2017.6.18177.
2
Parents' experiences in choosing a health plan for their children with special health care needs.家长为有特殊医疗需求的孩子选择健康保险计划的经验。
Matern Child Health J. 2011 Feb;15(2):217-24. doi: 10.1007/s10995-010-0581-z.
3
Medicaid consumers and informed decisionmaking.医疗补助计划消费者与明智决策
Health Care Financ Rev. 2009 Spring;30(3):25-40.
4
Meeting information needs to facilitate decision making: report cards for people with disabilities.满足信息需求以促进决策:残疾人报告卡。
Health Expect. 2007 Sep;10(3):278-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00453.x.
5
Understanding the reporting practices of CAHPS sponsors.了解CAHPS赞助商的报告做法。
Health Care Financ Rev. 2007 Spring;28(3):17-30.
6
Medicare beneficiary knowledge: measurement implications from a qualitative study.医疗保险受益人的知识:一项定性研究的测量意义
Health Care Financ Rev. 2006 Summer;27(4):13-23.
7
Measures and predictors of Medicare knowledge: a review of the literature.医疗保险知识的衡量方法与预测因素:文献综述
Health Care Financ Rev. 2006 Summer;27(4):1-12.
8
Can limiting choice increase social welfare? The elderly and health insurance.限制选择能否提高社会福利?老年人与健康保险。
Milbank Q. 2006;84(1):37-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00438.x.
9
Profit-seeking, corporate control, and the trustworthiness of health care organizations: assessments of health plan performance by their affiliated physicians.逐利、企业控制与医疗保健组织的可信度:附属医生对健康计划绩效的评估
Health Serv Res. 2005 Jun;40(3):605-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00377.x.
10
Understanding employee awareness of health care quality information: how can employers benefit?了解员工对医疗保健质量信息的认知:雇主如何从中受益?
Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec;39(6 Pt 1):1799-815. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00319.x.