Consumer Experiences in a Consumer‐Driven Health Plan
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the experience of enrollees in a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Survey of University of Minnesota employees regarding their 2002 health benefits. STUDY DESIGN: Comparison of regression-adjusted mean values for CDHP and other plan enrollees: customer service, plan paperwork, overall satisfaction, and plan switching. For CDHP enrollees only, use of plan features, willingness to recommend the plan to others, and reports of particularly negative or positive experiences. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were significant differences in experiences of CDHP enrollees versus enrollees in other plans with customer service and paperwork, but similar levels of satisfaction (on a 10-point scale) with health plans. Eight percent of CDHP enrollees left their plan after one year, compared to 5 percent of enrollees leaving other plans. A minority of CDHP enrollees used online plan features, but enrollees generally were satisfied with the amount and quality of the information provided by the CDHP. Almost half reported a particularly positive experience, compared to a quarter reporting a particularly negative experience. Thirty percent said they would recommend the plan to others, while an additional 57 percent said they would recommend it depending on the situation. CONCLUSIONS: Much more work is needed to determine how consumer experience varies with the number and type of plan options available, the design of the CDHP, and the length of time in the CDHP. Research also is needed on the factors that affect consumer decisions to leave CDHPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it