ArticleBMC health services research2025
Utilization of second medical opinions as a function of the payment method.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Willingness to pay for supplementary medical insurance and its influencing factors among rural residents in ethnic minority areas.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cost of a medical service and its mode of payment are known to play a role in patient decision-making, as demonstrated by the pioneering RAND Corporation Health Insurance Experiment (HIE). This study explores second medical opinion (SO) utilization by payment tracks- "financial reimbursement track" and "network track" by holders of an optional supplementary health insurance. It estimates SO utilization patterns before and after a "Reimbursement-to-Networks Arrangement" regulatory reform initiated on 2015 that eliminated the reimbursement option for SO consultations specifically involving surgeons, and identifies demographic and clinical predictors associated with each payment track before the reform.
methodsRetrospective analysis of medical records data, including secondary care visits data from Clalit Health Services, Israel's largest healthcare provider, and claims data from Clalit's supplementary insurance. An algorithm based on data from Clalit's electronic medical records was used to identify SO instances by payment method. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify characteristics of SO seekers by their payment method.
resultsThere was an increase of 28% in patient demand for SO consultations via the supplementary insurance's co-payment track from 2015 to 2017 due to the regulatory reform initiated in 2015. Before this reform, patients from the Arab sector, low socio-economic groups, immigrants, and residents of central geographical areas tended to seek SO via the "network track". Whereas patients from peripheral areas and Jewish Orthodox tended to seek SOs via the financial reimbursement track.
conclusionsIn line with the RAND Corporation HIE, we show that incentive structures, such as provider payment methods, can explain some of the variability seen in seeking specialists across health plans or payment tracks. Considerations other than cost, such as geographic distance from the service provider, play a role in deciding on the mode-of-payment for a SO. Analyzing utilization patterns can improve the tracking of regulations' consequences on expenditure, policy, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.
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.