• 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

为什么没有更多的雇主实施基于参照的定价福利设计?

Why aren't more employers implementing reference-based pricing benefit design?

机构信息

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Room 409, Boston, MA 02115. Email:

出版信息

Am J Manag Care. 2019 Feb;25(2):85-88.

PMID:30763039
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

There is robust evidence that implementation of reference-based pricing (RBP) benefit design decreases spending. This paper investigates employer adoption of RBP as a strategy to improve the value of patients' healthcare choices, as well as facilitators and barriers to the adoption of RBP by employers.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study using 12 in-depth interviews with human resources executives or their representatives at large- or medium-sized self-insured employers.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted and recorded over the phone between March 2017 and May 2017. Interviewees were asked about their adoption of RBP and facilitators and barriers to adoption. We applied thematic analysis to the transcripts.

RESULTS

Despite broad employer awareness of RBP's potential for cost savings, few employers are including RBP in their benefit design. The major barriers to RBP adoption were the complexity of RBP benefit design, concern that employees could face catastrophic out-of-pocket costs, lack of a business case for implementation, and concern that RBP could hurt the employer's competitiveness in the labor market. The few employers that have adopted RBP have implemented extensive, year-round employee education campaigns and invested in multipronged and proactive decision support to help employees navigate their choices.

CONCLUSIONS

Unless several fundamental barriers are addressed, uptake of RBP will likely continue to be low. Our findings suggest that simplifying benefit design, providing employees protection against very high out-of-pocket costs, understanding which decision-support strategies are most effective, and enhancing the business case could facilitate wider employer adoption of RBP.

摘要

目的

有充分证据表明,实施参考定价(RBP)福利设计可以降低支出。本文研究了雇主采用 RBP 作为改善患者医疗选择价值的策略,以及雇主采用 RBP 的促进因素和障碍。

研究设计

我们采用定性研究方法,对 12 名大型或中型自我保险雇主的人力资源主管或其代表进行了 12 次深入访谈。

方法

电话访谈于 2017 年 3 月至 5 月期间进行并记录。受访者被问及他们对 RBP 的采用情况以及采用的促进因素和障碍。我们对转录本进行了主题分析。

结果

尽管雇主普遍意识到 RBP 具有节省成本的潜力,但很少有雇主将其纳入福利设计。采用 RBP 的主要障碍是 RBP 福利设计的复杂性、担心员工可能面临灾难性的自付费用、缺乏实施的商业案例,以及担心 RBP 可能会损害雇主在劳动力市场上的竞争力。少数采用 RBP 的雇主已经实施了广泛的、全年的员工教育活动,并投资于多方面的积极决策支持,以帮助员工做出选择。

结论

除非解决几个基本障碍,否则 RBP 的采用率可能会继续保持低位。我们的研究结果表明,简化福利设计、为员工提供免受高额自付费用的保护、了解哪些决策支持策略最有效以及增强商业案例,都可以促进雇主更广泛地采用 RBP。

相似文献

1
Why aren't more employers implementing reference-based pricing benefit design?为什么没有更多的雇主实施基于参照的定价福利设计?
Am J Manag Care. 2019 Feb;25(2):85-88.
2
Association of Reference Pricing for Diagnostic Laboratory Testing With Changes in Patient Choices, Prices, and Total Spending for Diagnostic Tests.诊断实验室检测参考定价与诊断检测患者选择、价格和总支出变化的关联。
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Sep 1;176(9):1353-9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2492.
3
An employer's guide to controlling health care costs.雇主控制医疗保健成本指南。
Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2012 Apr-Jun;31(2):112-20. doi: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e318252053e.
4
Towers Perrin's outlook: what employers (and providers) need to know about defined contribution health plans.韬睿惠悦的观点:雇主(及供应商)需要了解的关于定额供款健康计划的内容。
Manag Care Q. 2002 Spring;10(2):9-12.
5
Defined contribution health benefits.固定缴款型健康福利
EBRI Issue Brief. 2001 Mar(231):1-30.
6
IBM's pursuit of quality and cost-effective health benefits.IBM对优质且具成本效益的健康福利的追求。
Manag Care Q. 1996 Winter;4(1):59-66.
7
The employer's case for health management.雇主开展健康管理的理由。
Benefits Q. 2006;22(1):23-33.
8
Association of a national insurer's reference-based pricing program and choice of imaging facility, spending, and utilization.国家保险公司的参考定价计划与影像设施选择、支出和利用之间的关联。
Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun;55(3):348-356. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13279. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
9
Survey: paternalism limits cost control at mid-sized employers.调查:家长式管理限制了中型雇主的成本控制。
Bus Health. 1992 Dec;10(14):26-7, 30.
10
Reference Pricing, Consumer Cost-Sharing, and Insurer Spending for Advanced Imaging Tests.先进成像检查的参考定价、消费者成本分摊与保险公司支出
Med Care. 2016 Dec;54(12):1050-1055. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000605.

引用本文的文献

1
Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.付费让患者选择价格较低的医疗机构。
Health Serv Res. 2022 Feb;57(1):37-46. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13711. Epub 2021 Aug 9.
2
An Employer-Provider Direct Payment Program Is Associated With Lower Episode Costs.雇主-供应商直接支付计划与较低的医疗费用有关。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Mar;40(3):445-452. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01488.
3
If reference-based benefit designs work, why are they not widely adopted? Insurers and administrators not doing enough to address price variation.
如果基于参考的福利设计行之有效,为何未被广泛采用?保险公司和管理人员在应对价格差异方面做得不够。
Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun;55(3):344-347. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13284. Epub 2020 Mar 29.
4
Association of a national insurer's reference-based pricing program and choice of imaging facility, spending, and utilization.国家保险公司的参考定价计划与影像设施选择、支出和利用之间的关联。
Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun;55(3):348-356. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13279. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
5
Paying Patients To Switch: Impact Of A Rewards Program On Choice Of Providers, Prices, And Utilization.付费患者转换:奖励计划对提供者选择、价格和使用的影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):440-447. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05068.