↓ Skip to main content

The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
The Roles of Cost and Quality Information in Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollment Decisions: an Observational Study
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3467-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel O. Reid, Partha Deb, Benjamin L. Howell, Patrick H. Conway, William H. Shrank

Abstract

To facilitate informed decision-making in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publishes plan information on the Medicare Plan Finder website, including costs, benefits, and star ratings reflecting quality. Little is known about how beneficiaries weigh costs versus quality in enrollment decisions. We aimed to assess associations between publicly reported Medicare Advantage plan attributes (i.e., costs, quality, and benefits) and brand market share and beneficiaries' enrollment decisions. We performed a nationwide, beneficiary-level cross-sectional analysis of 847,069 beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage for the first time in 2011. Matching beneficiaries with their plan choice sets, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate associations between plan attributes and enrollment to assess the proportion of enrollment variation explained by plan attributes and willingness to pay for quality. Relative to the total variation explained by the model, the variation in plan choice explained by premiums (25.7 %) and out-of-pocket costs (11.6 %) together explained nearly three times as much as quality ratings (13.6 %), but brand market share explained the most variation (35.3 %). Further, while beneficiaries were willing to pay more in total annual combined premiums and out-of-pocket costs for higher-rated plans (from $4,154.93 for 2.5-star plans to $5,698.66 for 5-star plans), increases in willingness to pay diminished at higher ratings, from $549.27 (95 %CI: $541.10, $557.44) for a rating increase from 2.5 to 3 stars to $68.22 (95 %CI: $61.44, $75.01) for an increase from 4.5 to 5 stars. Willingness to pay varied among subgroups: beneficiaries aged 64-65 years were more willing to pay for higher-rated plans, while black and rural beneficiaries were less willing to pay for higher-rated plans. While beneficiaries prefer higher-quality and lower-cost Medicare Advantage plans, marginal utility for quality diminishes at higher star ratings, and their decisions are strongly associated with plans' brand market share.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,602,148
of 25,046,311 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,915
of 8,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,147
of 272,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#18
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.