MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trust in Insurers and Access to Physicians: Associated Enrollee Behaviors and Changes over Time

2004· article· en· W1534852664 on OpenAlex
Rajesh Balkrishnan, Mark A. Hall, Stephen P. Blackwelder, Donald Bradley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEli Lilly and CompanyRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsBaseline (sea)IncentiveReferralQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationMultivariate analysisFamily medicineMedicineIntervention (counseling)Actuarial sciencePsychologyBusinessNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Most studies of trust in the medical arena have focused on trust in physicians rather than trust in health insurers, and have been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal studies. This study examined associations among trust in a managed care insurer, trust in one's primary physician, and subsequent enrollee behaviors relating to source of care. The study also documents changes in trust in the study population following the disclosure of physician incentives. STUDY SETTING: A medium-sized (300,000 member) HMO, located in the southeastern United States. DATA COLLECTION: One to two years after baseline, we randomly resurveyed a quarter (n = 558) of the initial study population of a large intervention study designed to measure the impact of disclosing HMO financial incentives on patient trust. This follow-up study was also designed to measure the effects of trust on source of care. ANALYSES: Multivariate regression analyses of survey data examined associations between baseline levels of trust and subsequent enrollee behaviors such as using a non-PCP physician without a PCP referral, as well as changes in trust since baseline. RESULTS: High baseline insurer trust was associated with a lower probability of a patient seeking care from a non-PCP physician (OR = 0.55, 95 percent CI: 0.33, 0.91). No long-term effects of prior disclosure of financial incentives were observed. Overall, there was a slight increase in overall trust in the insurer (1.8 percent, p < .05) but no change in trust in one's primary physician. The increase in insurer trust was primarily restricted to 23 percent of the enrollees who had changed their PCPs following the baseline survey (6.6 percent, p < .01). In multivariate analyses, changing physicians was the most significant predictor of increased insurer trust (OR = 2.17, 95 percent CI: 1.37, 3.43). CONCLUSIONS. Trust in one's insurer seems to change over time more than trust in one's primary physician, and is predictive of enrollee behaviors such as seeking care from other physicians. The ability to change physicians seems to increase trust in the insurer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it