Past experiences with surprise medical bills drive issue knowledge, concern and attitudes toward federal policy intervention.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-21 DOI:10.1017/S1744133121000281
Timothy Callaghan, Simon F Haeder, Steven Sylvester
{"title":"Past experiences with surprise medical bills drive issue knowledge, concern and attitudes toward federal policy intervention.","authors":"Timothy Callaghan,&nbsp;Simon F Haeder,&nbsp;Steven Sylvester","doi":"10.1017/S1744133121000281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scholars and journalists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the circumstances in which Americans receive surprise medical bills. Previous research on this issue has focused on the scope of the problem, including the conditions that are most likely to lead to surprise bills. However, the existing literature has almost exclusively relied on claims data, limiting our understanding of consumer experiences and attitudes toward policy changes to address surprise billing. Using a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 4998 Americans, we analyze consumer experiences with surprise billing, knowledge of the issue, how concerned Americans are about receiving surprise bills and how past experiences influence policy preferences toward federal action on surprise billing. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge and concern about surprise billing are the highest among the educated and those who have previously received a surprise bill. These factors also predict support for federal policy action, with high levels of support for federal policy action across the population, including among both liberals and conservatives. However, more detailed federal policy proposals receive significantly less support among Americans, suggesting that stand-alone policy action may not be viable. Our results show bipartisan support among American consumers for federal action on surprise billing in the abstract but no consistent views on specific policy proposals.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133121000281","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Scholars and journalists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the circumstances in which Americans receive surprise medical bills. Previous research on this issue has focused on the scope of the problem, including the conditions that are most likely to lead to surprise bills. However, the existing literature has almost exclusively relied on claims data, limiting our understanding of consumer experiences and attitudes toward policy changes to address surprise billing. Using a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 4998 Americans, we analyze consumer experiences with surprise billing, knowledge of the issue, how concerned Americans are about receiving surprise bills and how past experiences influence policy preferences toward federal action on surprise billing. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge and concern about surprise billing are the highest among the educated and those who have previously received a surprise bill. These factors also predict support for federal policy action, with high levels of support for federal policy action across the population, including among both liberals and conservatives. However, more detailed federal policy proposals receive significantly less support among Americans, suggesting that stand-alone policy action may not be viable. Our results show bipartisan support among American consumers for federal action on surprise billing in the abstract but no consistent views on specific policy proposals.

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
过去意外医疗账单的经历促使人们对问题的认识、关注和对联邦政策干预的态度。
学者和记者们花了相当多的精力来了解美国人收到意外医疗账单的情况。之前对这一问题的研究主要集中在问题的范围上,包括最有可能导致意外账单的条件。然而,现有的文献几乎完全依赖于索赔数据,限制了我们对消费者体验和对政策变化的态度的理解,以解决意外账单。通过对4998名美国人的全国代表性样本进行调查,我们分析了消费者对意外账单的体验、对问题的了解、美国人对收到意外账单的关注程度,以及过去的经验如何影响联邦政府对意外账单采取行动的政策偏好。我们的分析表明,在受过教育的人和以前收到过意外账单的人中,对意外账单的了解和关注是最高的。这些因素也预测了对联邦政策行动的支持,包括自由派和保守派在内的所有人对联邦政策行动的高水平支持。然而,更详细的联邦政策提案在美国人中得到的支持要少得多,这表明单独的政策行动可能不可行。我们的研究结果显示,美国消费者中两党都支持联邦政府对意外账单采取的行动,但对具体的政策建议没有一致的看法。
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
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland. Procedural fairness to recalibrate the power imbalance in health decision-making: comment on the report: 'Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage'. Navigating conflicting expectations in addressing healthcare scarcity: a q-methodology study on the Dutch National Health Care Institute. Including carer health-related quality of life in NICE health technology assessments in the United Kingdom. The inefficient effects of non-clinical factors on health care costs.
×
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:481959085
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