What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice.

Within a healthcare system with managed competition, health insurers are expected to act as prudent buyers of care on behalf of their customers. To fulfil this role adequately, understanding consumer preferences for health plan characteristics is of vital importance. Little is known, however, about these preferences and how they vary across consumers. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) we quantified trade-offs between basic health plan characteristics and analysed whether there are differences in preferences according to age, health status and income. We selected four health plan characteristics to be included in the DCE: (i) the level of provider choice and associated level of reimbursement, (ii) the primary focus of provider contracting (price, quality, social responsibility), (iii) the level of service benefits, and (iv) the monthly premium. This selection was based on a literature study, expert interviews and focus group discussions. The DCE consisted of 17 choice sets, each comprising two hypothetical health plan alternatives. A representative sample (n = 533) of the Dutch adult population, based on age, gender and educational level, completed the online questionnaire during the annual open enrolment period for 2015. The final model with four latent classes showed that being able to choose a care provider freely was by far the most decisive characteristic for respondents aged over 45, those with chronic conditions, and those with a gross income over €3000/month. Monthly premium was the most important choice determinant for young, healthy, and lower income respondents. We conclude that it would be very unlikely for half of the sample to opt for health plans with restricted provider choice. However, a premium discount up to €15/month by restricted health plans might motivate especially younger, healthier, and less wealthy consumers to choose these plans.

Freedom of choice of specialist physicians is important to Swiss resident: a cross-sectional study.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: To assess how important the possibility to choose specialist physicians is for Swiss residents and to determine which variables are associated with this opinion. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2007 Swiss population-based health survey and included 13,642 non-institutionalised adults who responded to the telephone and paper questionnaires. The dependent variable included answers to the question "How important is it for you to be able to choose the specialist you would like to visit?" Independent variables included socio-demographics, health and past year healthcare use measures. Crude and adjusted logistic regressions for the importance of being able to choose specialist physicians were performed, accounting for the survey design. RESULTS: 45% of participants found it very important to be able to choose the specialist physician they wanted to visit. The answers "rather important", "rather not important" and "not important" were reported by 28%, 20% and 7% of respondents. Women, individuals in middle/high executive position, those with an ordinary insurance scheme, those reporting ≥2 chronic conditions or poorer subjective health, or those who had had ≥2 outpatient visits in the preceding year were more likely to find this choice very important. CONCLUSIONS: In 2007, almost half of all Swiss residents found it very important to be able to choose his/her specialist physician. The further development of physician networks or other chronic disease management initiatives in Switzerland, towards integrated care, need to pay attention to the freedom of choice of specialist physicians that Swiss residents value. Future surveys should provide information on access and consultations with specialist physicians.

CHOICES: promoting early access to end-of-life care through home-based transition management.

CHOICES is a comprehensive home-based care coordination program designed to bridge the gap between home health and hospice for Medicare + Choice enrollees with advanced chronic illness in San Francisco's East Bay region. Key elements of the program include physician education, enrollment of patients with high disease burden who may not be terminally ill, co-management of care with the primary physician, and an advanced practice clinical team that provides comprehensive in-home assessments, a flexible mix of life-prolonging and palliative care that evolves with disease progression, focused education and advance planning, and caregiver support. During a 42-month demonstration, 208 patients were enrolled in the program. Eighty percent had a non-cancer diagnosis; 40% were people of color. After an 8-month follow-up, 44% of the study cohort had died in the program or after transfer to hospice, 51% had been discharged, and 5% remained active. Median length of stay for decedents was 260 days. Preliminary evidence supports the program's feasibility and acceptability to patients, families, physicians, and agency partners. However, the uncertain future of Medicare + Choice and of managed care may jeopardize the program's sustainability. Policymakers and taxpayers will need to determine how to care for the growing number of chronically ill elderly who wish to remain at home as illness advances. The care needs of these patients and their families may overwhelm a health system organized around hospital treatment of acute illness.

Which enrollees bypass their gatekeepers in a point-of-service plan?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Like Health Maintenance Organizations, point-of-service (POS) health plans use primary care gatekeepers, and they permit self-referral to specialists at increased costs to the enrollee. The main objective of this study was to contrast patients who self-referred with those referred by their primary care physician. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey of 606 recent users of specialists in a large Midwestern POS health plan; response rate was 65%. We compared 148 enrollees who self-referred with 458 who had a physician referral. RESULTS: Self-referral was most common among those with a long-term relationship with a specialist (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08) and those dissatisfied with their primary care physician (OR = 3.65), and was rare among those with a long-standing relationship with a primary care physician (OR = 0.46). Most self-referred enrollees (68%) thought paying the additional cost for self-referral was worthwhile, and they were more dissatisfied with the quality and variety of the plan's specialist network. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity with a single physician influences how patients access specialty care. Expanding the panel of specialists in-network and encouraging long-term relationships with primary care physicians are likely to limit self-referral in a POS plan.

A case study of point-of-service medical use in a managed care plan.

This study examines the extent of point-of-service use in a managed care plan using 1990 and 1991 proprietary claims data (excluding pharmacy claims) from a large, well-established individual practice association with a point-of-service option. Results show that approximately 12 percent of all claims were made by out-of-network providers, representing about 9 percent of the dollar value of all claims. This is about $131 per enrollee per year. While younger enrollees (i.e., 6-24 years of age) use fewer medical resources than do older enrollees, they tend to receive a greater share of their medical services from out-of-network providers. There is little difference between point-of-service use by males and females. Mental illness is the most common diagnosis for out-of-network claims, accounting for about 25 percent of the dollar value of out-of-network claims. Ninety-six percent of the out-of-network claims for this diagnosis category were made by providers with a specialty in psychiatry.

The spread of state any willing provider laws.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the growth of any willing provider (AWP) and freedom of choice (FOC) laws applicable to managed care firms and to explore empirically the determinants of their enactment. STUDY SETTING: A 1996 compendium of state laws and state-level data from the 1991-1994 period. STUDY DESIGN: Pooled cross-section time-series logistic regression of the decision to enact various types of AWP and FOC laws. Analysis uses a public choice framework to examine enactment. Key variables include proxy measures of proponent and opponent strength and the political environment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The model works well for laws affecting hospitals, but performs poorly for physician and pharmacy laws. More providers are associated with the enactment of AWP and FOC laws. More large employers are associated with a reduced likelihood of enactment of some forms of the laws but not others. Conservative states are more likely to enact laws limiting selective contracting with hospitals and physicians. States with greater interparty competition are also more likely to adopt some types of legislation. CONCLUSIONS: The empirical results generally are consistent with the view that AWP and FOC laws are often enacted as a defensive strategy on the part of providers, but additional research is needed to provide a more definitive assessment of the determinants of these laws. Suggestions for future research are provided.