The implications of plan design options for Medicare beneficiaries.

To make an informed selection between traditional Medicare and a Medicare managed care plan, a consumer needs to understand the implications of choosing one over the other. What are the implications of plan design for care, cost, and patient autonomy? Consumers need information about these questions. However, a barrier to developing this consumer information is the lack of a consistent body of evidence. An intermediate step is to tap expert knowledge. The purpose of this study is to use expert consensus (across a spectrum of health care experts) to identify the implications of plan design. Experts were surveyed and the degree to which there is consensus provides an initial picture of what experts judge to be important to the consumer. The findings show that experts agree on several implications associated with choosing managed care over the traditional Medicare plan. They also agree that many of these attributes vary considerably across health plans.

Can Medicare beneficiaries make informed choices?

This DataWatch assesses Medicare beneficiaries' understanding of the differences between their managed care and fee-for-service Medicare options. A telephone survey was used to evaluate knowledge levels among 1,673 beneficiaries residing in five Medicare markets with high managed care penetration. Half of the sample were enrolled in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and half in the traditional Medicare program. The findings show that 30 percent of beneficiaries know almost nothing about HMOs; only 11 percent have adequate knowledge to make an informed choice; and HMO enrollees have significantly lower knowledge levels of the differences between the two delivery systems. These findings have implications for educating beneficiaries about their expanded choices.

Will quality report cards help consumers?

This study assesses the relationship between the salience of quality information and how well it is understood by consumers. The analysis is based on survey data and content analysis from focus-group data (104 participants). The findings show that poorly understood indicators are viewed as not useful. Consumers often do not understand quality information because they do not understand the current health care context. All of this suggests that salience alone is not sufficient to determine which indicators should be included in report cards.

Informing consumer decisions in health care: implications from decision-making research.

Despite the wider dissemination of health plan report cards, little is known about whether consumers will use this information in making plan and provider choices. Studies of human judgment and decision making are reviewed, as are their implications for devising strategies to inform consumers. The limitations of human information processing suggest that many consumers will not use performance information in making choices. Strategies are needed to support consumers who prefer to rely on intermediaries as well as those who wish to apply the information for their own use. Many current strategies are based on assumptions not supported by existing decision-making research. Although there is much to learn about assisting consumers in making informed choices, a great deal is known from decision-making research. Our approaches and our research agenda must be based on this existing foundation of knowledge.

Choosing a health plan: do large employers use the data?

Significant private and public resources go into the production of various types of performance measures: from patient satisfaction with nonclinical service to clinical outcomes. While recent investigations have focused on the effect of clinical outcomes information on clinical practice, almost no work examines its effect on purchasers' decisions. This study examines how large employers use performance information, including clinical outcomes, in purchasing decisions. Representatives of thirty-three large employers that purchase for 1.8 million covered lives were interviewed in early 1997. Findings suggest that purchasers are not always aware of clinical outcomes data and that measures do not meet their decision-making needs. Further, the variety and amount of performance information to process for purchasing decisions is a barrier to effective decision making. Recommendations for supporting purchasers' use of performance information, especially clinical outcomes data, are included.

Comprehension of quality care indicators: differences among privately insured, publicly insured, and uninsured.

This study explores consumers' comprehension of quality indicators appearing in health care report cards. Content analyses of focus group transcripts show differences in understanding individual quality indicators and among three populations: privately insured; Medicaid; and uninsured. Several rounds of coding and analysis assess: the degree of comprehension; what important ideas are not understood; and what exactly is not understood about the indicator (inter-rater reliability exceeded 94 percent). Thus, this study is an educational diagnosis of the comprehension of currently disseminated quality indicators. Fifteen focus groups (5 per insurance type) were conducted with a total of 104 participants. Findings show that consumers with differing access to and experiences with care have different levels of comprehension. Indicators are not well understood and are interpreted in unintended ways. Implications and strategies for communicating and disseminating quality information are discussed.

Condition-specific performance information: assessing salience, comprehension, and approaches for communicating quality.

This study assesses how consumers view condition-specific performance measures and builds on an earlier study to test an approach for communicating quality information. The study uses three separate designs: a small experiment, a cross-sectional analysis of survey data, and focus groups. We test whether providing information on the health care context affects consumer understanding of indicators. Focus groups were used to explore how consumers view performance measures. The cross-sectional survey analysis used survey data from the experiment and the focus groups to look at comprehension and the salience of condition-specific performance measures. Findings show that a general consumer population does view condition-specific performance measures as salient. Further, the findings provide evidence that information on the health care context makes a difference in how consumers understand performance measures.