Private Sector Unlikely to Follow Medicare Lead in Providing Health Plan Disenrollment Comparisons

Kristin L. Carman PhD (Senior Research Scientist), Sarah Daugherty MPH (doctoral student in epidemiology), Lauren D. Harris-Kojetin PhD (Senior Health and Policy Researcher), James S. Lubalin PhD (President)
{"title":"Private Sector Unlikely to Follow Medicare Lead in Providing Health Plan Disenrollment Comparisons","authors":"Kristin L. Carman PhD (Senior Research Scientist),&nbsp;Sarah Daugherty MPH (doctoral student in epidemiology),&nbsp;Lauren D. Harris-Kojetin PhD (Senior Health and Policy Researcher),&nbsp;James S. Lubalin PhD (President)","doi":"10.1016/S1070-3241(02)28011-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There have been substantial efforts to improve the measurement and reporting of comparative quality information. A three-stage effort to develop comparative voluntary disenrollment measures for private health insurance plans is described. The literature on disenrollment and how key groups might use disenrollment information is reviewed; the development of a comparative survey of disenrollment is described; reasons employers, purchasing coalitions, and plans were ultimately unwilling or unable to sponsor the survey are delineated; and implications of these findings are discussed.</p></div><div><h3>Data and methods</h3><p>Methods used to develop the survey included review of existing literature on disenrollment, review of extant disenrollee surveys, cognitive testing, and expert review of the survey. Informal and formal interviews were conducted to assess the feasibility of different sponsors.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A disenrollment survey instrument that covered areas of common interest to consumers, purchasers, and plans could be developed, but sponsors to test the collection and reporting of these data could not be recruited. This was due to four interrelated factors: technical challenges in developing appropriate samples, wide variation in resources and capabilities of purchasers and plans, the perception that the costs of the survey outweighed the benefits of comparative information on disenrollment to the different sponsors, and the absence of strong demand from purchasers, regulators, or consumers to motivate plans to collect or report comparative information on disenrollment.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Several major barriers must be overcome before disenrollment information can become a component of comparative health care quality measures for the privately insured.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79382,"journal":{"name":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","volume":"28 3","pages":"Pages 115-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1070-3241(02)28011-6","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1070324102280116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background

There have been substantial efforts to improve the measurement and reporting of comparative quality information. A three-stage effort to develop comparative voluntary disenrollment measures for private health insurance plans is described. The literature on disenrollment and how key groups might use disenrollment information is reviewed; the development of a comparative survey of disenrollment is described; reasons employers, purchasing coalitions, and plans were ultimately unwilling or unable to sponsor the survey are delineated; and implications of these findings are discussed.

Data and methods

Methods used to develop the survey included review of existing literature on disenrollment, review of extant disenrollee surveys, cognitive testing, and expert review of the survey. Informal and formal interviews were conducted to assess the feasibility of different sponsors.

Results

A disenrollment survey instrument that covered areas of common interest to consumers, purchasers, and plans could be developed, but sponsors to test the collection and reporting of these data could not be recruited. This was due to four interrelated factors: technical challenges in developing appropriate samples, wide variation in resources and capabilities of purchasers and plans, the perception that the costs of the survey outweighed the benefits of comparative information on disenrollment to the different sponsors, and the absence of strong demand from purchasers, regulators, or consumers to motivate plans to collect or report comparative information on disenrollment.

Implications

Several major barriers must be overcome before disenrollment information can become a component of comparative health care quality measures for the privately insured.

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
私营部门不太可能跟随医疗保险的领导提供健康计划退出比较
背景:在改进比较质量信息的度量和报告方面已经作出了大量努力。介绍了为制定私人健康保险计划的比较自愿退出措施而进行的三个阶段的努力。回顾了有关退保的文献以及关键群体如何使用退保信息;本文描述了一项关于取消登记的比较调查的发展;本文描述了雇主、采购联盟和计划最终不愿或不能赞助调查的原因;并讨论了这些发现的意义。数据和方法用于制定调查的方法包括回顾现有的关于退选的文献,回顾现有的退选调查,认知测试和专家审查调查。进行了非正式和正式访谈,以评估不同发起人的可行性。结果可以开发一种涵盖消费者、购买者和计划共同感兴趣的领域的退保调查工具,但无法招募赞助者来测试这些数据的收集和报告。这是由于四个相互关联的因素造成的:在开发适当样本方面的技术挑战,购买者和计划的资源和能力差异很大,认为调查的成本超过了关于退保的比较信息对不同发起人的好处,以及购买者、监管机构或消费者没有强烈的需求来激励计划收集或报告关于退保的比较信息。在取消登记信息成为私人参保人比较医疗保健质量措施的组成部分之前,必须克服几个主要障碍。
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
Effects of Hydroxyurea Treatment on Haemolysis in Patients with Sickle Cell Disease at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania. To Our Readers Introduction Advocacy: The Lexington Veterans Affairs Medical Center John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety Awards. Research: David W. Bates, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women's Hospital. Interview by Steven Berman.
×
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