ArticleHealth services research2022
Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.
Article in Health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefit design and consumer information: results from a randomized trial.The American journal of managed care · 2026Trial
- Commercial prices relative to Medicare were lower under an employer-based reference pricing program.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.Health services research · 2022Article
- Estimating the Impact of New Health Price Transparency Policies.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Price Transparency in United States' Health Care: A Narrative Policy Review of the Current State and Way Forward.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMany employers have introduced rewards programs as a new benefit design in which employees are paid $25-$500 if they receive care from lower-priced providers. Our goal was to assess the impact of the rewards program on procedure prices and choice of provider and how these outcomes vary by length of exposure to the program and patient population. STUDY
settingA total of 87 employers from across the nation with 563,000 employees and dependents who have introduced the rewards program in 2017 and 2018. STUDY
designDifference-in-difference analysis comparing changes in average prices and market share of lower-priced providers among employers who introduced the reward program to those that did not. DATA COLLECTION
methodsWe used claims data for 3.9 million enrollees of a large health plan. PRINCIPAL
findingsIntroduction of the program was associated with a 1.3% reduction in prices during the first year and a 3.7% reduction in the second year of access. Use of the program and price reductions are concentrated among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, for which 30% of patients engaged with the program, 5.6% of patients received an incentive payment in the first year, and 7.8% received an incentive payment in the second year. MRI prices were 3.7% and 6.5% lower in the first and second years, respectively. We did not observe differential impacts related to enrollment in a consumer-directed health plan or the degree of market-level price variation. We also did not observe a change in utilization.
conclusionsThe introduction of financial incentives to reward patients from receiving care from lower-priced providers is associated with modest price reductions, and savings are concentrated among MRI services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.