Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2026
Benefit design and consumer information: results from a randomized trial.
Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo test whether consumer inertia in choosing primary care clinics (PCCs) in a tiered total cost of care system can be reduced by supplying tailored information on clinic cost directly to consumers during open enrollment. STUDY
designRandomized controlled trial among individuals with employment-based health insurance. Members were randomly assigned by their zip code of residence, with 100 zip codes assigned to the treatment group and 100 to the control group.
methodsDuring the open enrollment period for calendar year 2020, members in the treatment group received emails providing enhanced tier information on the most popular PCCs in their zip code. We ran regression analyses to evaluate the marginal effect of the targeted intervention on consumer choice.
resultsThe intervention had only a small marginal effect on choice of PCC. Before the intervention, nearly 85% of consumers were selecting PCCs in the 2 tiers with the lowest cost sharing, suggesting that tiering alone may already have addressed the problems of poor information and distorted prices inherent in many health insurance designs.
conclusionsProviding members with enhanced tier information on local PCCs had a limited marginal effect on consumer choice, suggesting that informational interventions alone are insufficient to overcome existing inertia or, potentially, that consumers were already adequately informed through the tiered total cost of care benefit design.
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.