Consumers' Perceptions And Choices Related To Three Value-Based Insurance Design Approaches

Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):456-463. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05048.

Abstract

The burden of rising health care costs is being shifted to consumers, and 30 percent of health care costs are attributed to wasteful spending on low- or no-value services. Value-based insurance design (VBID) is intended to encourage the use of high-value services or discourage the use of low-value services by aligning cost with quality. During the summer and fall of 2016, this mixed-methods study used focus groups and a quantitative analysis of survey data to explore consumer decision making in Northern California. When presented with three common VBID approaches, the focus groups favored value-based benefit design the most (41 percent), followed by reference pricing (28 percent) and narrow networks (21 percent). When presented with VBID scenarios, participants were skeptical of the value-based trade-offs and reported seeking information they wanted instead of relying on information that health plans provide. Engaging consumers to successfully reduce waste through VBID will require clarifying trade-offs to support consumers' processes for arriving at high-value decisions as well as reaching out to consumers through trusted sources and networks.

Keywords: Access To Care; Affordable Care Act; Costs and Spending; Employer Sponsored Insurance; Insurance Coverage and Benefits; Markets; hospital quality.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Attitude to Health
  • California
  • Consumer Behavior* / economics
  • Consumer Behavior* / statistics & numerical data
  • Female
  • Focus Groups
  • Humans
  • Income / statistics & numerical data
  • Insurance, Health / economics
  • Insurance, Health / organization & administration*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Value-Based Health Insurance* / economics
  • Value-Based Health Insurance* / organization & administration
  • Young Adult