Suppr超能文献

成本和质量信息在医疗保险优势计划参保决策中的作用:一项观察性研究。

The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study.

作者信息

Reid Rachel O, Deb Partha, Howell Benjamin L, Conway Patrick H, Shrank William H

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Feb;31(2):234-241. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3467-3. Epub 2015 Aug 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011.

MAIN MEASURES

Matching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality.

KEY RESULTS

Relative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans.

CONCLUSIONS

While beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

摘要

背景

为便于在医疗保险优势市场中做出明智的决策,医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心在医疗保险计划查找网站上公布计划信息,包括成本、福利以及反映质量的星级评定。对于受益人在参保决策中如何权衡成本与质量,人们知之甚少。

目的

我们旨在评估公开报告的医疗保险优势计划属性(即成本、质量和福利)与品牌市场份额以及受益人参保决策之间的关联。

设计、设置、参与者:我们对2011年首次参保医疗保险优势的847,069名受益人进行了全国性的、受益人的横断面分析。

主要测量指标

将受益人与其计划选择集进行匹配,我们使用条件逻辑回归来估计计划属性与参保之间的关联,以评估计划属性和为质量支付意愿所解释的参保差异比例。

关键结果

相对于模型所解释的总变异,保费(25.7%)和自付费用(11.6%)共同解释的计划选择变异几乎是质量评级(13.6%)的三倍,但品牌市场份额解释的变异最大(35.3%)。此外,虽然受益人愿意为评级更高的计划支付更多的年度总保费和自付费用(从二星半计划的4154.93美元到五星计划的5698.66美元),但在更高评级时支付意愿的增加有所减少,从评级从二星半提高到三星时的549.27美元(95%CI:541.10美元,557.44美元)降至评级从四星半提高到五星时的68.22美元(95%CI:61.44美元,75.01美元)。支付意愿在亚组间存在差异:64 - 65岁的受益人更愿意为评级更高的计划支付,而黑人和农村受益人则不太愿意为评级更高的计划支付。

结论

虽然受益人更喜欢质量更高、成本更低的医疗保险优势计划,但在更高的星级评定中质量的边际效用会降低,并且他们的决策与计划的品牌市场份额密切相关。

相似文献

1
The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study.
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Feb;31(2):234-241. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3467-3. Epub 2015 Aug 18.
2
Association between Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and enrollment.
JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):267-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.173925.
3
The effect of health plan characteristics on Medicare+ Choice enrollment.
Health Serv Res. 2003 Feb;38(1 Pt 1):113-35. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.00108.
4
Analysis of Drivers of Disenrollment and Plan Switching Among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1;179(4):524-532. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7639.
5
Quality of Home Health Agencies Serving Traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1910622. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10622.
7
Will choice-based reform work for Medicare? Evidence from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Health Serv Res. 2006 Oct;41(5):1741-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00580.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Older adults living with dementia enrolled in similar Medicare Advantage plans compared to those without dementia.
Alzheimers Dement Behav Socioecon Aging. 2025 Jun;1(2). doi: 10.1002/bsa3.70016. Epub 2025 May 5.
2
Health insurance purchase intentions in the past decade: a systematic review and future research directions.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jun 2;25(1):788. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12917-0.
4
Veterans Health Administration benefit value has little effect on reliance.
Am J Manag Care. 2025 Feb 1;31(2):e56-e61. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2025.89684.
5
A scoping review of the impact of ageing on individual consumers' insurance purchase intentions.
Heliyon. 2024 Sep 7;10(18):e37501. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37501. eCollection 2024 Sep 30.
6
Enrollment Patterns of Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries by Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefits.
JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Jan 5;5(1):e234936. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4936.
7
Measuring restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage networks: A claims-based approach.
Health Serv Res. 2024 Feb;59(1):e14255. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14255. Epub 2023 Nov 12.
9
Differences between integrated and non-integrated plans in Medicare Advantage.
Health Serv Res. 2023 Jun;58(3):560-568. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14101. Epub 2022 Nov 21.
10
Association of Medicare Advantage Premiums With Measures of Quality and Patient Experience.
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Aug 5;3(8):e222826. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2826.

本文引用的文献

2
At least half of new Medicare advantage enrollees had switched from traditional Medicare during 2006-11.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Jan;34(1):48-55. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0218.
3
Does the racial/ethnic composition of Medicare Advantage plans reflect their areas of operation?
Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr;49(2):526-45. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12100. Epub 2013 Aug 28.
4
Cognition and take-up of subsidized drug benefits by Medicare beneficiaries.
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 24;173(12):1100-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.845.
5
Association between Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and enrollment.
JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):267-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.173925.
6
Low cognitive ability and poor skill with numbers may prevent many from enrolling in Medicare supplemental coverage.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Aug;31(8):1847-54. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1000.
7
Consumers' and providers' responses to public cost reports, and how to raise the likelihood of achieving desired results.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Apr;31(4):843-51. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1181. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
8
Medicare Advantage--lessons for Medicare's future.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 29;366(13):1174-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1200156. Epub 2012 Feb 22.
9
Complex Medicare advantage choices may overwhelm seniors--especially those with impaired decision making.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Sep;30(9):1786-94. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0132. Epub 2011 Aug 18.
10
Choosing the right medicare prescription drug plan: the effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size.
Health Psychol. 2011 Nov;30(6):719-27. doi: 10.1037/a0023951. Epub 2011 May 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验