Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: evidence from controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE To assess whether presentation approaches designed to be more meaningful result in greater weighting of quality information in decisions. An emerging body of research indicates that the way information is presented affects how it is interpreted and how it is weighted in decisions. Comparative health plan performance reports are not being used by consumers possibly because the information presented is difficult to use. The next generation of these reports should be designed to support decision making. DESIGN AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS The study uses a controlled experimental design. Participants (n = 162) were randomly assigned to different conditions and asked to complete tasks related to using quality information and making health plan selections. Dependent variables included the amount of weight given to quality information in choices and decision accuracy. RESULTS Some presentation approaches make it easier for users to process and integrate quality data into their choices. However, other presentation formats influence consumers' decisions in ways that undermine their self-interest. CONCLUSIONS Findings indicate that presenting quality data in a more evaluable format increases the weight it carries in consumer decisions. Every change made in the presentation of comparative data has the potential to influence decisions. Those who disseminate information have a responsibility to be aware of how they use that influence and to direct it in productive and defensible ways. The alternative is to manipulate people in ways that are unknown, are not thought out, or are not defensible, but are no less manipulative.

[1]  F. Sainfort,et al.  Role of Information in Consumer Selection of Health Plans , 1996, Health care financing review.

[2]  J. Fowles,et al.  Impact of Report Cards On Employees: A Natural Experiment , 1998, Health care financing review.

[3]  D. Scanlon,et al.  Health plan report cards and insurance choice. , 1998, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[4]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Comprehension of Quality Care Indicators: Differences Among Privately Insured, Publicly Insured, and Uninsured , 1996, Health care financing review.

[5]  Christopher K. Hsee Elastic Justification: How Tempting But Task-Irrelevant Factors Influence Decisions , 1995 .

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[7]  D E Kanouse,et al.  Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection? , 2000, Health services research.

[8]  Douglas A. Kysar,et al.  Taking behavioralism seriously: some evidence of market manipulation. , 1999, Harvard law review.

[9]  Douglas A. Kysar,et al.  Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation , 1999 .

[10]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[11]  D. Kanouse,et al.  Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. , 1999, Medical care.

[12]  Christopher K. Hsee Less is Better: When Low-Value Options are Valued More Highly than High-Value Options , 1998 .

[13]  J. Edward Russo,et al.  An Effective Display of Unit Price Information , 1975 .

[14]  D. Scanlon,et al.  HEDIS Measures and Managed Care Enrollment , 1999, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[15]  R. Dawes,et al.  Linear models in decision making. , 1974 .

[16]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Will quality report cards help consumers? , 1997, Health affairs.

[17]  M. Birnbaum Testing Critical Properties of Decision Making on the Internet , 1999 .

[18]  A. Fendrick,et al.  Health plan report cards: exploring differences in plan ratings. , 1998, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.