Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30342542›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

The effect of cost-sharing design characteristics on use of health care recommended by the treating physician; a discrete choice experiment.

Benjamin H Salampessy, Maaike M Alblas, France R M Portrait, Xander Koolman, Eric J E van der Hijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Medicaid Coverage for Podiatric Care: A National Survey.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Benjamin H SalampessyDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.h.salampessij@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7006-8559
Maaike M AlblasDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
France R M PortraitDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Xander KoolmanDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric J E van der HijdenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost-sharing programs are often too complex to be easily understood by the average insured individual. Consequently, it is often difficult to determine the amount of expenses in advance. This may preclude well-informed decisions of insured individuals to adhere to medical treatment advised by the treating physician. Preliminary research has showed that the uncertainty in these cost-sharing payments are affected by four design characteristics, i.e. 1) type of payments (copayments, coinsurances or deductibles), 2) rate of payments, 3) annual caps on cost-sharing and 4) moment that these payments must be made (directly at point of care or billed afterwards by the insurer).

methodsAn online discrete choice experiment was used to assess the extent to which design characteristics of cost-sharing programs affect the decision of individuals to adhere to recommended care (prescribed medications, ordered diagnostic tests and referrals to medical specialist care). Analyses were performed using mixed multinomial logits.

resultsThe questionnaire was completed by 7921 members of a patient organization. Analyses showed that 1) cost-sharing programs that offer clear information in advance on actual expenses that are billed afterwards, stimulate adherence to care recommended by the treating physician; 2) the relative importance of the design characteristics differed between respondents who reported to have forgone health care due to cost-sharing and those who did not; 3) price-awareness among respondents was limited; 4) the utility derived from attributes and respondents' characteristics were positively correlated; 5) an optimized cost-sharing program revealed an adherence of more than 72.9% among those who reported to have forgone health care.

conclusionsThe analyses revealed that less complex cost-sharing programs stimulate adherence to recommended care. If these programs are redesigned accordingly, individuals who had reported to have forgone a health service recommended by their treating physician due to cost-sharing, would be more likely to use this service. Such redesigned programs provide a policy option to reduce adverse health effects of cost-sharing in these groups. Considering the upcoming shift from volume-based to value-based health care provision, insights into the characteristics of a cost-sharing program that stimulates the use of recommended care may help to design value-based insurance plans.

Indexed as

Cost SharingDeductibles and CoinsuranceFacilities and Services UtilizationFemaleHealth Care ReformHealth ExpendituresHumansInsurance CarriersMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Referral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesCost-sharingDiscrete choice experimentHealth reformManaged carePrice transparency

Identifiers

PMID30342542
PMCPMC6195970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.