Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42327645›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

Employee preferences in health plan design: results from a national survey.

Robert M Kaplan, Margaret C Nikolov, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Arnold Milstein, Sara J Singer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Robert M KaplanClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4837-5330
Margaret C NikolovClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4249-1074
Jeffrey PfefferStanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.
Arnold MilsteinClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2794-2378
Sara J SingerClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3374-1177

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Employer-sponsored health insurance covers over 60% of the U.S. population under age 65 and represents a significant expense for employers, yet employees' views on benefit design remain understudied. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative survey of 1200 U.S. adults using employer-sponsored insurance to assess preferences for benefit trade-offs, including narrower provider networks. The survey used stratified sampling and weighting to ensure demographic representativeness. Results: Nearly half (49.9%) preferred retaining the current balance of salary and benefits. However, 45.9% would accept a narrower network in exchange for higher compensation, and 30.9% supported narrow networks if savings were redirected to other benefits. Trade-off preferences varied by age, sex, race, parental status, and political ideology. Most respondents (74.8%) trusted employers to select plans and believed any cost reductions should be returned to employees (72.0%). Many also supported excluding high-cost providers without demonstrated quality advantages. Conclusion: The findings suggest that employees are open to cost-efficient plan designs if savings are shared transparently, although other data suggest that few employers are doing this.

Indexed as

consumer preferenceemployee benefitsemployer-Sponsored insurancehealth care costs

Identifiers

PMID42327645
PMCPMC13282439

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.