How do quality information and cost affect patient choice of provider in a tiered network setting? Results from a survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To assess how quality information from multiple sources and financial incentives affect consumer choice of physicians in tiered physician networks.Data source
Survey of a stratified random sample of Massachusetts state employees.Study design
Respondents were assigned a hypothetical structure with differential copayments for "Tier 1" (preferred) and "Tier 2" (nonpreferred) physicians. Half of respondents were told they needed to select a cardiologist, and half were told they needed to select a dermatologist. Patients were asked whether they would choose a Tier 1 doctor, a Tier 2 doctor, or had no preference in a case where they had no further quality information, a case where a family member or friend recommended a Tier 2 doctor, and a case where their personal physician recommended a Tier 2 doctor. The effects of copayments, recommendations, physician specialty, and patient characteristics on the reported probability of selecting a Tier 1 doctor are analyzed using multinomial logit and logistic regression.Principal findings
Relative to a case where there is no copayment differential between tiers, copayment differences of U.S.$10-U.S.$35 increase the number of respondents indicating they would select a Tier 1 physician by 3.5-11.7 percent. Simulations suggest copayments must exceed U.S.$300 to counteract the recommendation for a lower tiered physician from friends, family, or a referring physician. Sensitivity to the copayments varied with physician specialty.Conclusions
Tiered provider networks with these copayment levels appear to have limited influence on physician choice when contradicted by other trusted sources. Consumers' response likely varies with physician specialty.
SUBMITTER: Sinaiko AD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3064913 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThis paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period.MethodsGeneralized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.ResultsAt the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases.ConclusionDuring the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas.
| S-EPMC9278379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:When a person chooses a healthcare provider, they are trading off cost, convenience, and a latent third factor: "perceived quality". In urban areas of lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including slums, individuals have a wide range of choice in healthcare provider, and we hypothesised that people do not choose the nearest and cheapest provider. This would mean that people are willing to incur additional cost to visit a provider they would perceive to be offering better healthcare. In this article, we aim to develop a method towards quantifying this notion of "perceived quality" by using a generalised access cost calculation to combine monetary and time costs relating to a visit, and then using this calculated access cost to observe facilities that have been bypassed. The data to support this analysis comes from detailed survey data in four slums, where residents were questioned on their interactions with healthcare services, and providers were surveyed by our team. We find that people tend to bypass more informal local services to access more formal providers, especially public hospitals. This implies that public hospitals, which tend to incur higher access costs, have the highest perceived quality (i.e., people are more willing to trade cost and convenience to visit these services). Our findings therefore provide evidence that can support the 'crowding out' hypothesis first suggested in a 2016 Lancet Series on healthcare provision in LMICs.
| S-EPMC10022014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reforms giving users of public services choice of provider aim to improve quality. But such reforms will work only if quality affects choice of provider. We test this crucial prerequisite in the English health care market by examining the choice of 3.4 million individuals of family doctor. Family doctor practices provide primary care and control access to non-emergency hospital care, the quality of their clinical care is measured and published and care is free. In this setting, clinical quality should affect choice. We find that a 1 standard deviation increase in clinical quality would increase practice size by around 17%.
| S-EPMC5349292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a tiered network on hospital choice for scheduled admissions.DataThe 2009-2012 patient-level claims data from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA).Study designBCBSMA's three-tiered hospital network employs large differential cost sharing to encourage patients to seek care at hospitals on the preferred tier. During the study period, 44 percent of hospitals were moved to a different tier based on changes in cost or quality performance. We relied on this longitudinal variation for identification and specified conditional logit models to estimate the effect of the tiered network (TN) on patients' hospital choices relative to a non-TN comparison group.Principal findingsThe TN was associated with increased use of hospitals on the preferred and middle tiers relative to the nonpreferred tier for planned admissions. The results suggest that if all members were in a TN plan, relative to all members being in a non-TN plan, scheduled admissions to hospitals on the nonpreferred tier would drop by 7.6 percentage points, while those to middle and preferred tier hospitals would rise by 0.9 and 6.6 percentage points, respectively.ConclusionDifferential cost sharing can steer patients toward preferred hospitals for planned admissions.
| S-EPMC4600365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo test the null hypothesis that exposure to societal cost information does not affect choice of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).MethodsWe enrolled 304 participants using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform to complete a survey in which participants were given the choice between carpal tunnel release (CTR) or a less-expensive option (orthosis wear) in a hypothetical mild CTS scenario. Patients were randomized to receive information about the societal cost of CTR (cost cohort) or no cost information (control). The primary outcome was the probability of choosing CTR measured on a 6-point ordinal scale. We employed qualitative content analysis to evaluate participants' rationale for their choice. We also explored agreement with various attitudes toward health care costs on an ordinal scale.ResultsParticipants in the cost cohort exhibited a greater probability of choosing surgery than those in the control cohort. The relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.85). Among participants who had not previously been diagnosed with CTS (n = 232), the relative risk of choosing surgery after exposure to societal cost information was 1.55 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.06). Lack of personal monetary responsibility frequently emerged as a theme in those in the cost cohort who chose surgery. The majority (94%) of participants expressed at least some agreement that health care cost is a major problem whereas only 58% indicated that they consider the country's health care costs when making treatment decisions.ConclusionsParticipants who received societal cost information were more likely to choose the more expensive treatment option (CTR) for mild CTS.Clinical relevanceExposure to societal cost information may influence patient decision making in elective hand surgery. A complete understanding of this influence is required prior to implementing processes toward greater cost transparency for diagnostic/treatment options. Sharing out-of-pocket costs with patients may be a beneficial approach because discussing societal cost information alone will likely not improve value of care.
| S-EPMC8139279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumer health information technology can improve patient engagement in their health care and assist in navigating the complexities of health care delivery. However, the consumer health information technology offerings of health systems are often driven by provider rather than patient perspectives and inadequately address patient needs, thus limiting their adoption by patients. Consideration given to patients as stakeholders in the development of such technologies may improve adoption, efficacy, and consumer health information technology resource allocation. OBJECTIVE:The aims of this paper were to measure patient interest in different health system consumer health information technology apps and determine the influence of patient characteristics on consumer health information technology interest. METHODS:Patients seen at the Cleveland Clinic Neurological Institute were electronically surveyed on their interest in using different consumer health information technology apps. A self-efficacy scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression screen, and EuroQol 5 dimensions health-related quality of life scale were also completed by patients. Logistic regression was used to determine the influence of patient characteristics on interest in consumer health information technology in the categories of self-management, education, and communication. RESULTS:The majority of 3852 patient respondents had an interest in all technology categories assessed in the survey. The highest interest was in apps that allow patients to ask questions of providers (3476/3852, 90.24%) and to schedule appointments (3211/3839, 83.64%). Patient interest in consumer health information technology was significantly associated with greater depression symptoms, worse quality of life, greater health self-efficacy, and smartphone ownership (P<.001 for all listed). CONCLUSIONS:Patients should be viewed as active stakeholders in consumer health information technology development and their perspectives should consistently guide development efforts. Health systems should consider focusing on consumer health information technologies that assist patients in scheduling appointments and asking questions of providers. Patients with depression should also be considered for targeted consumer health information technology implementation. Health self-efficacy is a valid predictor of consumer health information technology interest and may play a role in the utilization of consumer health information technologies. Health systems, broadly, should put forth greater effort to understand the needs and interests of patients in the consumer health information technology development process. Consumer health information technology design and implementation may be improved by understanding which technologies patients want.
| S-EPMC6004033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe PROMISE study was launched in 2018 to assess and document the implementation of changes to an existing HIV Care Coordination Programme (CCP) designed to address persistent disparities in care and treatment engagement among persons with HIV in New York City. We evaluated provider endorsement of features of the CCP to understand drivers of engagement with the programme.MethodsWe used a discrete choice experiment to measure provider endorsement of four CCP attributes, including: (1) how CCP helps with medication adherence, (2) how CCP helps with primary care appointments, (3) how CCP helps with issues other than primary care and (4) where CCP visits take place (visit location). Each attribute had three to four levels. Our primary outcomes were relative importance and part-worth utilities, measures of preference for the levels of the four CCP program attributes, estimated using a hierarchical-Bayesian multinomial logit model. All non-medical providers in the core CCP positions of patient navigator, care coordinator and programme director or other administrator from each of the 25 revised CCP-implementing agencies were eligible to participate.ResultsWe received responses from 152 providers, 68% of whom identified as women, 49% identified as Latino/a, 34% identified as Black and 60% were 30-49 years old. Visit location (28.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 27.0-30.3%) had the highest relative importance, followed by how staff help with ART adherence (24.3%, 95% CI 22.4-26.1%), how staff help with issues other than primary care (24.2%, 95% CI 22.7-25.7%) and how staff help with primary care appointments (22.9%, 95% CI 21.7-24.1%). Within each of the above attributes, respectively, the levels with the highest part-worth utilities were home visits 60 minutes from the program or agency (utility 19.9, 95% CI 10.7-29.0), directly observed therapy (utility 26.1, 95% CI 19.1-33.1), help with non-HIV specialty medical care (utility 26.5, 95% CI 21.5-31.6) and reminding clients about and accompanying them to primary care appointments (utility 20.8, 95% CI 15.6-26.0).ConclusionsOngoing CCP refinements should account for how best to support and evaluate the intensive CCP components endorsed by providers in this study.
| S-EPMC8944220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextUse of Immunization information systems (IISs) by providers can improve vaccination rates by identifying missed opportunities. However, provider reporting of children's vaccination histories to IISs remains suboptimal.ObjectiveTo assess factors associated with provider reporting to an IIS.DesignAnalysis of 2006-2012 National Immunization Survey (NIS) and NIS-Teen data. NIS and NIS-Teen are ongoing random-digit-dial telephone surveys of households with children and adolescents, respectively, followed by a mail survey to providers to obtain the patient's vaccination history.Setting and participantsA total of 115 285 children aged 19 to 35 months and 83 612 adolescents aged 13 to 17 years and their immunization providers in the United States.Main outcome measuresThe percentage of children and adolescents with 1 or more providers reporting to or obtaining vaccination information from their local IISs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient and provider factors associated with provider reporting to IISs and adjusted prevalence of children and adolescents with 1 or more providers reporting to IISs.ResultsIn 2012, 79.4% of children and 77.4% of adolescents had 1 or more providers report any of their vaccination data to an IIS, and 41.9% of children and 51.5% of adolescents had providers who obtained any of their vaccination histories from an IIS. During 2006-2012, children and adolescents were more likely to have any of their vaccination data reported to an IIS if they received care from all public versus all private providers (children: 84.4% vs 69.6%, P < .0001; adolescents: 84.6% vs 66.4%, P < .0001), had 1 or more providers who ordered vaccines from a state or local health department (children: 76.7% vs 59.5%, P < .0001; adolescents: 77.0% vs 55.6%, P < .0001), or had 1 or more providers obtain vaccination information from the IIS (children: 86.1% vs 71.2%, P < .0001; adolescents: 83.7% vs 64.6%, P < .0001).ConclusionsHealth department staff should target providers less likely to use IIS services, including private providers, and providers not ordering vaccines from health departments to ensure they use IIS services.
| S-EPMC6604039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo understand responses of primary care clinics to inclusion in a tiered total cost of care insurance benefit design.Study designWe used a qualitative design beginning with longitudinal analysis of administrative data on consumer clinic choice, clinic tier placement, and clinic actions, followed by in-depth interviews with key informants from clinics, administering health plans, and program administrators.MethodsWe collected data via semistructured interviews with purposively sampled key informants selected from clinics that prospectively reduced prices to move to, or remain in, a tier with lower cost sharing. Data from interview transcripts were coded using qualitative coding software and analyzed for thematic responses.ResultsOur findings suggest that clinics respond to the incentives in the tiered cost-sharing benefit design. Two motivations cited by clinics are (1) concern over developing a reputation as a high-cost clinic and (2) concern about the possible loss of patients due to higher cost sharing. Some clinics have agreed to price reductions or risk-sharing arrangements to move to, or remain in, a tier with lower cost sharing. Clinic informants reported that price reductions alone are not scalable. They sought greater transparency in tier assignment and increased data sharing to help them reduce costly or unnecessary utilization.ConclusionsManagers of primary care clinics respond to a tiered benefit design that holds them accountable for total cost of care. They respond by offering price discounts and expressing interest in reducing costly referrals and unnecessary use of services.
| S-EPMC9940713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This data article introduces a data set containing 1459 observations that can enable researchers to examine issues related to and perform statistical investigations into questions of relationships between sources of health care information, data sufficiency, trust levels between patients and healthcare experts (and the advice). The data set also records assessment of Vietnamese patients on whether their choice of health care provider is best available (optimal vs. nonoptimal). The data come from a survey in many hospitals in Hanoi and several neighboring provinces/cities in the North of Vietnam, during the last quarter of 2015. Variables that can be useful for future analysis include sources and availability of information, cost, and amount of time for seeking information. The quality of information and health professionals' credibility are critical factors in helping patients choose a health care provider. Mendeley Data, v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/gmbz53tpwc.1; and can enable the modeling after useful discrete data models such as BCL, with one example being provided in this data article.
| S-EPMC5063815 | biostudies-literature