Show simple item record

Insurance Benefit Preferences of the Low-income Uninsured

dc.contributor.authorDanis, Marionen_US
dc.contributor.authorBiddle, Andrea K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDorr Goold, Susanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T19:30:25Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T19:30:25Z
dc.date.issued2002-02en_US
dc.identifier.citationDanis, Marion; Biddle, Andrea K . ; Dorr Goold, Susan (2002). "Insurance Benefit Preferences of the Low-income Uninsured ." Journal of General Internal Medicine 17(2): 125-133. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72645>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0884-8734en_US
dc.identifier.issn1525-1497en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72645
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11841528&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractA frequently cited obstacle to universal insurance is the lack of consensus about what benefits to offer in an affordable insurance package. This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of providing uninsured patients the opportunity to define their own benefit package within cost constraints. DESIGN: Structured group exercises SETTING: Community setting PARTICIPANTS: Uninsured individuals recruited from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina. MEASUREMENTS: Insurance choices were measured using a simulation exercise, CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together). Participants designed managed care plans, individually and as groups, by selecting from 15 service categories having varied levels of restriction (e.g., formulary, copayments) within the constraints of a fixed monthly premium comparable to the typical per member/per month managed care premium paid by U.S. employers. MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-four individuals who were predominantly male (70%), African American (55%), and socioeconomically disadvantaged (53% earned <$15,000 annually) participated in 22 groups and were able to design health benefit packages individually and in groups. All 22 groups chose to cover hospitalization, pharmacy, dental, and specialty care, and 21 groups chose primary care and mental health. Although individuals' choices differed from their groups' selections, 86% of participants were willing to abide by group choices. CONCLUSIONS: Groups of low-income uninsured individuals are able to identify acceptable benefit packages that are comparable in cost but differ in benefit design from managed care contracts offered to many U.S. employees today.en_US
dc.format.extent591082 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Science, Inc.en_US
dc.rights2002 by the Society of General Internal Medicineen_US
dc.subject.otherMedically Uninsureden_US
dc.subject.otherManaged Care Programsen_US
dc.subject.otherInsurance, Healthen_US
dc.subject.otherMedicaiden_US
dc.subject.otherFinancing, Governmenten_US
dc.subject.otherHealth Care Rationingen_US
dc.subject.otherHealth Care Reformen_US
dc.subject.otherHealth Policyen_US
dc.titleInsurance Benefit Preferences of the Low-income Uninsureden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInternal Medicine and Specialtiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid11841528en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72645/1/j.1525-1497.2002.10609.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10609.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of General Internal Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreference1. Bureau USC. Health insurance coverage. 1999 Vol. 2001: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthin99. Accessed February 26, 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrumbach K. Insuring the uninsured: time to end the aura of invisibility. JAMA. 2000; 284: 2114 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHellander I. A review of data on the health sector of the United States. Int J Health Serv. 2000; 30: 641 – 53.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlumenthal D. Controlling health care expenditures. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 766 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePauly M, Herring B. Expanding coverage via tax credits: trade-offs and outcomes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001; 20: 9 – 26.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeder J, Levitt L, O'Brien E, Rowland D. Covering the low-income uninsured: the case for expanding public programs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001; 20: 27 – 39.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKahn C III, Pollack R. Building a consensus for expanding health coverage. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001; 20: 40 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavis K, Schoen C, Schoenbaum S. A 2020 vision for American health care. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 3357 – 62.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaiser E, Plaza C. Finance issue brief: insurance reform. Issue Brief Health Policy Tracking Serv. 1999; 6: 1 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePear R. Governors offer ‘radical’ revision of Medicaid plan. New York Times. February 26, 2001: A1.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoold S, Biddle A, Danis M. Choosing Healthplans All Together': A game to assess consumer values and preferences for health insurance. J of Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15: 68 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference12. Milliman and Robertson Inc. HMO Intercompany Rate Survey. Brookfield, Wis: Milliman and Robertson, Inc.; 1997.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuke R, Greenblat C. Principles and Practices of Gaming Simulation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1981.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerki S, Ashcroft M. HMO enrollment: who joins what and why. A review of the literature. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1980; 58: 588 – 632.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMechanic D, Ettel T, Davis D. Choosing among health insurance options: a study of new employees. Inquiry. 1990; 27: 14 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrazier K. Factors affecting choice of health care plans. Health Serv Res. 1986; 20: 659 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Am Statistical Assoc. 1959; 58: 690 – 700.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions of percentages. Psychometrika. 1947; 12: 153 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoy E, Wicks E, Forland R. A guide to facilitating consumer choice. Health Aff (Millwood). 1996; 15: 9 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBerghold L. Benefit design choices under managed care competition. Health Aff (Millwood). 1993; 12: 99 – 109.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFleck L. Just caring: health reform and health care rationing. J Med Philos. 1994; 19: 435 – 43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteinberg Schone B, Cooper P. Assessing the impact of health plan choice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001; 20: 267 – 75.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacobs L, Marmor T, Oberlander J. The Oregon Health Plan and the political paradox of rationing: what advocates and critics have claimed and what Oregon did. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999; 24: 161 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbelson J, Lomas J, Eyles J, Birch S, Veenstra G. Does the community want devolved authority? Results from deliberative polling in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J. 1995; 153: 403 – 12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDicker A, Armstrong D. Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practice. BMJ. 1995; 311: 1137 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBusse R. Priority-setting and rationing in German health care. Health Policy. 1999; 50: 71 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizen juries. Health Policy. 1999; 49: 45 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEckerlund I, Ekhof J, Nathorst-Boos J. Patient preferences or cost effectiveness? Priorities are highly affected by introduction of economic dimension. Lakartidningen. 2000; 97: 5782 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBowling A, Jacobson B, Southgate L. Health service priorities. Soc Sci Med. 1993; 37: 851 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFowler F, Berwick D, Roman A, Massagali M. Measuring public priorities for insurable health care. Med Care. 1994; 32: 625 – 39.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSatcher D. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Vol. 2001: Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevinson C, Druss B. The evolution of mental health parity in American politics. Admin Policy Ment Health. 2000; 28: 139 – 46.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFronstin P. Sources of health insurance and characteristics of the uninsured: analysis of the March 1999 Current Population Survey. EBRI Issue Brief. 2000; 217: 1 – 26.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.