30 research outputs found

    Health Plan Choice and Information about Out-of-Pocket Costs: An Experimental Analysis

    No full text
    Many consumers are offered two or more employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and competition among health plans for subscribers is promoted as a mechanism for balancing health care costs and quality. Yet consumers may not receive the information necessary to make informed health plan choices. This study tests the effects on health plan choice of providing supplemental decision-support materials to inform consumers about expected health plan costs. Our main finding is that such information induces consumers to bear more risk, especially those in relatively good health. Thus our results suggest that working-age, privately insured consumers currently may be over-insuring for medical care

    Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?

    Get PDF
    People are often more likely to accept risky monetary gambles with positive expected values when the gambles will be played more than once. We investigated whether this distinction between single-play and multiple-play gambles extends to medical treatments for individual patients and groups of patients. Resident physicians and medical students (extit{n} = 69) and undergraduates (extit{n} = 99) ranked 9 different flu shots and a no-flu-shot option in 1 of 4 combinations of perspective (individual patient vs. group of 1000 patients) and uncertainty frame (probability vs. frequency). The rank of the no-flu-shot option (a measure of preference for treatment vs. no treatment) was not significantly related to perspective or participant population. The main effect of uncertainty frame and the interaction between perspective and uncertainty frame approached significance (0.1 {extgreater} extit{p} {extgreater} 0.05), with the no-flu-shot option faring particularly poorly (treatment faring particularly well) when decisions about many patients were based on frequency information. Undergraduate participants believed that the no-flu-shot option would be less attractive (treatment would be more attractive) in decisions about many patients, but these intuitions were inconsistent with the actual ranks. These results and those of other studies suggest that medical treatments for individuals and groups are not analogous to single-play and multiple-play monetary gambles, perhaps because many people are unwilling to aggregate treatment outcomes over patients in the same way that they would compute net gains or losses over monetary gambles

    Are Medical Treatments for Individuals and Groups Like Single-Play and Multiple-Play Gambles?

    No full text
    People are often more likely to accept risky gambles with positive expected values when the gambles will be played more than once. We investigated whether this distinction between singleplay and multiple-play gambles extends to medical treatments for individual patients and groups of patients. Resident physicians and medical students (n = 69) and undergraduates (n = 99) ranked 9 different flu shots and a no-flu-shot option in 1 of 4 combinations of perspective (individual patient vs. group of 1000 patients) and uncertainty frame (probability vs. frequency). The rank of the no-flu-shot option (a measure of preference for treatment vs. no treatment) was not significantly related to perspective or participant population. The main effect of uncertainty frame and the interaction between perspective and uncertainty frame approached significance (0.1 < p < 0.05), with the no-flu-shot option faring worst (treatment faring best) when decisions about many patients were based on frequency information. Undergraduate participants believed that the no-flu-shot option would be less attractive (treatment would be more attractive) in decisions about many patients, but these intuitions were inconsistent with the actual ranks. These results and those of other studies suggest that medical treatments for individuals and groups are not analogous to single-play and multiple-play monetary gambles, perhaps because people are unwilling to aggregate treatment outcomes over multiple patients

    The Wellcome Trust

    No full text
    The authors conducted a large-scale survey about health care twice, once as a web and once as a random digit dialing (RDD) phone survey. The web survey used a statistical technique, propensity scoring, to adjust for selection bias. Comparing the weighted responses from both surveys, there were no significant response differences in 8 of 37 questions. Web survey responses were significantly more likely to agree with RDD responses when the question asked about the respondent’s personal health (9 times more likely), was a factual question (9 times more likely), and only had two as opposed to multiple AUTHORS’NOTE: This study was funded by the California HealthCare Foundation. We are very grateful for the Foundation’s support. The authors would like to thank George Terhanian and Michael Bosnjak for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft as well as the anonymous referees for very helpful comments
    corecore