• 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

一个更便于用户使用的医疗保险计划查找工具能否改善消费者对医疗保险计划的选择?

Can a More User-Friendly Medicare Plan Finder Improve Consumers' Selection of Medicare Plans?

作者信息

Martino Steven C, Kanouse David E, Miranda David J, Elliott Marc N

机构信息

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2017 Oct;52(5):1749-1771. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12582. Epub 2016 Oct 7.

DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12582
PMID:27714799
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5583314/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy for consumers of two potential enhancements to the Medicare Plan Finder (MPF)-a simplified data display and a "quick links" home page designed to match the specific tasks that users seek to accomplish on the MPF.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Participants (N = 641) were seniors and adult caregivers of seniors who were recruited from a national online panel. Participants browsed a simulated version of the MPF, made a hypothetical plan choice, and reported on their experience.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a fully factorial design: 2 home pages (quick links, current MPF home page) × 2 data displays (simplified, current MPF display) × 2 plan types (stand-alone prescription drug plan [PDP], Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage [MA-PD]).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The quick links page resulted in more favorable perceptions of the MPF, improved users' understanding of the information, and increased the probability of choosing the objectively best plan. The simplified data display resulted in a more favorable evaluation of the website, better comprehension of the displayed information, and, among those choosing a PDP only, an increased probability of choosing the best plan.

CONCLUSIONS

Design enhancements could markedly improve average website users' understanding, ability to use, and experience of using the MPF.

摘要

目的

评估医疗保险计划查找器(MPF)的两项潜在改进措施对消费者的效果,这两项改进措施分别是简化数据显示以及设计一个“快速链接”主页,以匹配用户在MPF上想要完成的特定任务。

数据来源/研究背景:参与者(N = 641)为从全国在线小组招募的老年人及老年护理人员。参与者浏览了MPF的模拟版本,做出了假设性的计划选择,并报告了他们的体验。

研究设计

参与者在全因子设计中被随机分配到八个条件之一:2种主页(快速链接、当前MPF主页)×2种数据显示(简化、当前MPF显示)×2种计划类型(独立处方药计划[PDP]、含处方药保险的医疗保险优势计划[MA-PD])。

主要发现

快速链接页面使人们对MPF有更积极的看法,提高了用户对信息的理解,并增加了选择客观上最佳计划的可能性。简化数据显示使对网站的评价更积极,对所显示信息的理解更好,并且在仅选择PDP的人群中,选择最佳计划的可能性增加。

结论

设计改进可显著提高普通网站用户对MPF的理解、使用能力及使用体验。

相似文献

1
Can a More User-Friendly Medicare Plan Finder Improve Consumers' Selection of Medicare Plans?一个更便于用户使用的医疗保险计划查找工具能否改善消费者对医疗保险计划的选择?
Health Serv Res. 2017 Oct;52(5):1749-1771. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12582. Epub 2016 Oct 7.
2
PDP or MA-PD? Medicare part D enrollment decisions in CMS Region 25.PDP 还是 MA-PD?CMS 第 25 区的医疗保险部分 D 注册决策。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2010 Jun;6(2):130-42. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.04.002.
3
Simplifying The Medicare Plan Finder Tool Could Help Older Adults Choose Lower-Cost Part D Plans.简化医疗保险计划选择工具可以帮助老年人选择更低成本的 Part D 计划。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Aug;37(8):1290-1297. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0145.
4
Determinants of Medicare plan choices: are beneficiaries more influenced by premiums or benefits?医疗保险计划选择的决定因素:受益人受保费还是福利的影响更大?
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Jul;21(7):498-504.
5
Medicare Advantage: options for standardizing benefits and information to improve consumer choice.医疗保险优势:规范福利和信息以改善消费者选择的方案。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2008 Apr;33:1-19.
6
Plan selection in Medicare Part D: evidence from administrative data.医疗保险D部分的计划选择:来自行政数据的证据
J Health Econ. 2013 Dec;32(6):1325-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.06.006.
7
Choice set size and decision making: the case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.选择集大小与决策:以医疗保险处方药计划为例。
Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5):582-93. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09357793. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
8
Problem-based learning using the online Medicare Part D Plan Finder tool.使用在线医疗保险D部分计划查找工具的基于问题的学习。
Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Jun 15;72(3):47. doi: 10.5688/aj720347.
9
Does Part D abet advantageous selection in Medicare Advantage?医疗保险优势计划中的 D 部分是否助长了有利选择?
J Health Econ. 2017 Dec;56:368-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.06.007.
10
Cost minimization of medicare part D prescription drug plan expenditures.医疗保险D部分处方药计划支出的成本最小化
Am J Manag Care. 2009 Aug;15(8):545-53.

引用本文的文献

1
Addressing complexity: The development and pilot testing of a user-friendly Medicare Part D patient decision aid tool.应对复杂性:一款用户友好型医疗保险D部分患者决策辅助工具的开发与试点测试
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2025 Sep;31(9):868-878. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.9.868.
2
Estimating financial and health burden by initial Medicare plan choice and history of cancer.根据初始医疗保险计划选择和癌症病史估算财务和健康负担。
Health Aff Sch. 2025 Jan 21;3(1):qxaf001. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxaf001. eCollection 2025 Jan.
3
Medicare Part D beneficiaries' self-reported barriers to switching plans and making plan comparisons at all.医疗保险D部分受益人的自我报告的在更换计划以及进行计划比较方面存在的障碍。
Health Aff Sch. 2024 Nov 2;2(11):qxae141. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxae141. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Association of Medicare Advantage Premiums With Measures of Quality and Patient Experience.医疗保险优势保费与质量和患者体验衡量指标的关联。
JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Aug 5;3(8):e222826. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2826.
5
Trends in Older Adults' Knowledge of Medicare Advantage Benefits, 2010 to 2016.2010 至 2016 年老年人对医疗保险优势福利认知的变化趋势。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Oct;68(10):2343-2347. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16656. Epub 2020 Jun 20.
6
Coverage of Novel Therapeutic Agents by Medicare Prescription Drug Plans Following FDA Approval.医疗保险处方药计划在 FDA 批准后对新治疗药物的覆盖范围。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Dec;24(12):1230-1238. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.12.1230.
7
Improving Patients' Choice of Clinician by Including Roll-up Measures in Public Healthcare Quality Reports: an Online Experiment.在公共医疗质量报告中纳入累积措施以改善患者对临床医生的选择:一项在线实验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Feb;34(2):243-249. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4725-y. Epub 2018 Nov 16.
8
Simplifying The Medicare Plan Finder Tool Could Help Older Adults Choose Lower-Cost Part D Plans.简化医疗保险计划选择工具可以帮助老年人选择更低成本的 Part D 计划。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Aug;37(8):1290-1297. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0145.

本文引用的文献

1
Association between Medicare Advantage plan star ratings and enrollment.医疗保险优势计划星级评定与参保情况的关联
JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):267-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.173925.
2
When less is enough: Cognitive aging, information search, and decision quality in consumer choice.少即是多:认知老化、信息搜索与消费者选择中的决策质量
Psychol Aging. 2010 Jun;25(2):289-98. doi: 10.1037/a0017927.
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
How much choice is too much? The case of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.多少选择才算过多?医疗保险处方药福利的案例。
Health Serv Res. 2009 Aug;44(4):1157-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00981.x. Epub 2009 May 26.
5
Usability of the Medicare health web site.医疗保险健康网站的可用性。
JAMA. 2008 Aug 20;300(7):790-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.7.790-b.
6
Do content and format affect older consumers' use of comparative information in a Medicare health plan choice? Results from a controlled experiment.内容和形式是否会影响老年消费者在医疗保险健康计划选择中对比较信息的使用?一项对照实验的结果。
Med Care Res Rev. 2006 Dec;63(6):701-18. doi: 10.1177/1077558706293636.
7
Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure.患者激活量表简版的开发与测试
Health Serv Res. 2005 Dec;40(6 Pt 1):1918-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x.
8
Task complexity and older adults' decision-making competence.任务复杂性与老年人的决策能力。
Psychol Aging. 2005 Mar;20(1):71-84. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.71.
9
Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: evidence from controlled studies.向消费者报告健康计划绩效信息的策略:来自对照研究的证据。
Health Serv Res. 2002 Apr;37(2):291-313. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.024.
10
Consumer responses to health plan report cards in two markets.两个市场中消费者对健康保险计划评级报告的反应。
Med Care. 2000 May;38(5):469-81. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200005000-00004.