Suppr超能文献

2016年医保市场选择架构下消费者理解不足与计划选择不一致的问题

Poor Consumer Comprehension and Plan Selection Inconsistencies Under the 2016 HealthCare.gov Choice Architecture.

作者信息

Wang Annabel Z, Scherr Karen A, Wong Charlene A, Ubel Peter A

机构信息

Duke University, Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC.

Duke University, School of Medicine, Durham, NC.

出版信息

MDM Policy Pract. 2017 Jan-Jun;2(1). doi: 10.1177/2381468317716441. Epub 2017 Jun 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many health policy experts have endorsed insurance competition as a way to reduce the cost and improve the quality of medical care. In line with this approach, health insurance exchanges, such as HealthCare.gov, allow consumers to compare insurance plans online. Since the 2013 rollout of HealthCare.gov, administrators have added features intended to help consumers better understand and compare insurance plans. Although well-intentioned, changes to exchange websites affect the context in which consumers view plans, or choice architecture, which may impede their ability to choose plans that best fit their needs at the lowest cost.

METHODS

By simulating the 2016 HealthCare.gov enrollment experience in an online sample of 374 American adults, we examined comprehension and choice of HealthCare.gov plans under its choice architecture.

RESULTS

We found room for improvement in plan comprehension, with higher rates of misunderstanding among participants with poor math skills (P < 0.05). We observed substantial variations in plan choice when identical plan sets were displayed in different orders (P < 0.001). However, regardless of order in which they viewed the plans, participants cited the same factors as most important to their choices (P > 0.9).

LIMITATIONS

Participants were drawn from a general population sample. The study does not assess for all possible plan choice influencers, such as provider networks, brand recognition, or help from others.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest two areas of improvement for exchanges: first, the remaining gap in consumer plan comprehension and second, the apparent influence of sorting order - and likely other choice architecture elements - on plan choice. Our findings inform strategies for exchange administrators to help consumers better understand and select plans that better fit their needs.

摘要

背景

许多卫生政策专家支持保险竞争,认为这是降低医疗成本和提高医疗质量的一种方式。按照这种方法,诸如医保网(HealthCare.gov)之类的医疗保险交易所允许消费者在线比较保险计划。自2013年医保网推出以来,管理人员增加了一些功能,旨在帮助消费者更好地理解和比较保险计划。尽管出发点是好的,但交易所网站的变化会影响消费者查看计划的背景,即选择架构,这可能会妨碍他们以最低成本选择最适合自己需求的计划。

方法

通过在374名美国成年人的在线样本中模拟2016年医保网的参保体验,我们研究了在其选择架构下对医保网计划的理解和选择情况。

结果

我们发现计划理解方面仍有改进空间,数学技能较差的参与者误解率更高(P < 0.05)。当相同的计划集以不同顺序展示时,我们观察到计划选择存在很大差异(P < 0.001)。然而,无论他们查看计划的顺序如何,参与者都将相同的因素视为对其选择最重要的因素(P > 0.9)。

局限性

参与者来自一般人群样本。该研究并未评估所有可能影响计划选择的因素,例如提供商网络、品牌认知度或他人的帮助。

结论

我们的研究结果表明交易所存在两个需要改进的方面:第一,消费者对计划理解方面仍存在差距;第二,排序顺序以及可能的其他选择架构元素对计划选择有明显影响。我们的研究结果为交易所管理人员提供了策略依据,以帮助消费者更好地理解并选择更符合其需求的计划。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f645/6125038/fb20087fa881/10.1177_2381468317716441-fig1.jpg

相似文献

1
Poor Consumer Comprehension and Plan Selection Inconsistencies Under the 2016 HealthCare.gov Choice Architecture.
MDM Policy Pract. 2017 Jan-Jun;2(1). doi: 10.1177/2381468317716441. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
2
Shopping on the Public and Private Health Insurance Marketplaces: Consumer Decision Aids and Plan Presentation.
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1400-1410. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4483-x. Epub 2018 May 29.
3
When All That Glitters Is Gold: Dominated Plan Choice on Covered California for the 2018 Plan Year.
Milbank Q. 2021 Dec;99(4):1059-1087. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12518. Epub 2021 Jul 6.
4
"Pick a Plan and Roll the Dice": A qualitative study of consumer experiences selecting a health plan in the non-group market.
Health Policy Open. 2023 Dec 2;5:100112. doi: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2023.100112. eCollection 2023 Dec 15.
5
An early examination of access to select orphan drugs treating rare diseases in health insurance exchange plans.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014 Oct;20(10):997-1004. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.10.997.
9
Three years in - changing plan features in the U.S. health insurance marketplace.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 15;18(1):450. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3198-3.
10
Awakening consumer stewardship of health benefits: prevalence and differentiation of new health plan models.
Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 2):1055-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00273.x.

引用本文的文献

1
INFORMATION GAPS AND HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Navigator Programs.
Am J Health Econ. 2022 Fall;8(4):477-505. doi: 10.1086/721569. Epub 2022 Sep 22.
3
4
Applying Behavioral Economics to Improve Adolescent and Young Adult Health: A Developmentally-Sensitive Approach.
J Adolesc Health. 2021 Jul;69(1):17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.10.007. Epub 2020 Dec 4.

本文引用的文献

2
For Third Enrollment Period, Marketplaces Expand Decision Support Tools To Assist Consumers.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):680-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1637.
3
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980. Epub 2011 Feb 3.
4
Seeing Health Insurance and HealthCare.gov Through the Eyes of Young Adults.
J Adolesc Health. 2015 Aug;57(2):137-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.017. Epub 2015 Jun 16.
7
Preparedness of Americans for the Affordable Care Act.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 15;111(15):5497-502. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320488111. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
8
Can consumers make affordable care affordable? The value of choice architecture.
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 18;8(12):e81521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081521. eCollection 2013.
9
The health reform monitoring survey: addressing data gaps to provide timely insights into the affordable care act.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Jan;33(1):161-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0934. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
10
Knowledge of health insurance terminology and details among the uninsured.
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Feb;71(1):85-98. doi: 10.1177/1077558713505327. Epub 2013 Oct 24.

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