RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Expert opinion has not been used as a basis for comparing different forms of health insurance, in part because this perspective may not be appropriately sensitive to aspects of care that consumers value. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using a case-control design, managed care experts were surveyed at 17 academic institutions in the United States to determine the type of health plan they chose (fee-for-service, HMO, POS, PPO, or catastrophic). Controls consisted of academicians from other disciplines at these institutions who ostensibly faced the same insurance options. We then compared the choices of physician experts, nonphysician experts and controls using a multinomial logit model that was sensitive to the choice set available at each institution. We also examined the choice behavior of respondents within moderate (< $150,000) and high (> or =$150,000) income levels. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven experts and 465 controls were surveyed and responses were received from 73.7% and 52.7%, respectively. Physician experts were approximately half as likely (14.9%) as controls (26.6%) or nonphysician experts (27.6%) to enroll in HMO plans. In moderate-income households, both physicians (Relative Risk [RR] = 0.42; P <0.01) and nonphysician experts (RR = 0.71; P <0.1) were less likely than controls to opt for an HMO. Experts' propensity to choose HMO coverage varied little with income, whereas controls' propensity changed dramatically between moderate (39.1% in HMOs) and high (14.0% in HMOs) income categories. CONCLUSIONS: The aversion of physician experts, and nonphysician experts with moderate income, to HMO plans may be caused by their stronger distaste for the constraints on choice and access that typically accompany HMO coverage. Alternatively, it may be explained by their superior ability to absorb, understand, and use information about available insurance options. Insights into quality in managed care may also play a role.
