Insurance coverage & Whither Thou Goest for health information in 2012.

Medicare & medicaid research review Pub Date : 2014-10-21 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.5600/mmrr.004.04.b01
Loren Saulsberry, Mary Price, John Hsu
{"title":"Insurance coverage & Whither Thou Goest for health information in 2012.","authors":"Loren Saulsberry, Mary Price, John Hsu","doi":"10.5600/mmrr.004.04.b01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Examine use of the Internet (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) technologies by privately insured, publicly insured (Medicare/Medicaid), or uninsured U.S. adults in 2012.</p><p><strong>Data source: </strong>Pew Charitable Trust telephone interviews of a nationally representative, random sample of 3,014 adult U.S. residents, age 18+.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Estimate health information seeking behavior overall and by segment (i.e., insurance type), then, adjust estimates for individual traits, clinical need, and technology access using logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most respondents prefer offline to online (Internet) health information sources; over half across all segments use the Internet. More respondents communicate with providers offline compared with online. Most self-reported Internet users use online tools for health information, with privately insured respondents more likely to use new technologies. Unadjusted use rates differ across segments. Medicaid beneficiaries are more likely than the privately insured to share health information online, and Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than the privately insured to text with health professionals. After adjustment, these differences were minimal (e.g., Medicare beneficiaries had odds similar to the privately insured of online physician consultations), or the direction of the association reversed (e.g., Medicaid beneficiaries had greater odds than the privately insured of online physician consultations versus lower odds before adjustment).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Few adults report eHealth or mHealth use in 2012. Use levels appear unevenly distributed across insurance types, which could be mostly attributed to differences in individual traits and/or need. As out-of-pocket costs of medical care increases, consumers may increasingly turn to these generally free electronic health tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":89601,"journal":{"name":"Medicare & medicaid research review","volume":"4 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222715/pdf/mmrr2014-004-04-b01.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicare & medicaid research review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5600/mmrr.004.04.b01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective: Examine use of the Internet (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) technologies by privately insured, publicly insured (Medicare/Medicaid), or uninsured U.S. adults in 2012.

Data source: Pew Charitable Trust telephone interviews of a nationally representative, random sample of 3,014 adult U.S. residents, age 18+.

Methods: Estimate health information seeking behavior overall and by segment (i.e., insurance type), then, adjust estimates for individual traits, clinical need, and technology access using logistic regression.

Results: Most respondents prefer offline to online (Internet) health information sources; over half across all segments use the Internet. More respondents communicate with providers offline compared with online. Most self-reported Internet users use online tools for health information, with privately insured respondents more likely to use new technologies. Unadjusted use rates differ across segments. Medicaid beneficiaries are more likely than the privately insured to share health information online, and Medicare beneficiaries are more likely than the privately insured to text with health professionals. After adjustment, these differences were minimal (e.g., Medicare beneficiaries had odds similar to the privately insured of online physician consultations), or the direction of the association reversed (e.g., Medicaid beneficiaries had greater odds than the privately insured of online physician consultations versus lower odds before adjustment).

Discussion: Few adults report eHealth or mHealth use in 2012. Use levels appear unevenly distributed across insurance types, which could be mostly attributed to differences in individual traits and/or need. As out-of-pocket costs of medical care increases, consumers may increasingly turn to these generally free electronic health tools.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2012年的保险覆盖率和健康信息的去向。
目的:调查2012年私人参保、公共参保(Medicare/Medicaid)或未参保的美国成年人对互联网(eHealth)和移动医疗(mHealth)技术的使用情况。数据来源:皮尤慈善信托对具有全国代表性的3014名18岁以上的美国成年居民进行了电话采访。方法:估计整体和细分(如保险类型)的健康信息寻求行为,然后使用logistic回归对个体特征、临床需求和技术获取进行调整。结果:大多数被调查者更喜欢线下的健康信息来源,而不是在线(互联网);在所有细分市场中,超过一半的人使用互联网。与在线沟通相比,更多的受访者通过线下方式与供应商沟通。大多数自我报告的互联网用户使用在线工具获取健康信息,私人保险的受访者更有可能使用新技术。未调整的使用率在不同的细分市场有所不同。医疗补助受益人比私人保险受益人更有可能在网上分享健康信息,医疗保险受益人比私人保险受益人更有可能与医疗专业人员发短信。调整后,这些差异是最小的(例如,医疗保险受益人与私人保险的在线医生咨询的几率相似),或者协会的方向相反(例如,医疗补助受益人比私人保险的在线医生咨询的几率更大,而调整前的几率更低)。讨论:很少有成年人报告在2012年使用电子健康或移动健康。不同保险类型的使用水平似乎不均匀分布,这主要归因于个体特征和/或需求的差异。随着自付医疗费用的增加,消费者可能越来越多地转向这些通常免费的电子健康工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Monitoring and reporting hospital-acquired conditions: a federalist approach. Corrigendum. Trends in complicated newborn hospital stays & costs, 2002-2009: implications for the future. Effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent policy decisions on off-label use in myelodysplastic syndromes. Beneficiary activation in the Medicare population.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1