Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 672275

Factor affecting the choice between two prepaid plans.

Abstract

This study examines the factors affecting the choice between two comprehensive prepaid plans of medical care available to the staff of Stanford University. One is a Kaiser plan, offered since 1969. Under the other (Clinic plan for short), medical services are provided by a predominantly fee-for-service group practice and hospital services are covered by a standard Blue Cross hospital policy; the Clinic plan has been available since the 1950s. The Kaiser plan has only a token copayment for office and home visit while the Clinic plan has a 25 per cent coinsurance provision applying to all physician and outpatient ancillary services. It was found that the two major factors affecting choice were income and distance to the provider. The preference for the Kaiser plan increased as income decreased. Similarly, as distance from the Clinic increased and distance from a Kaiser facility decreased, the preference for the Kaiser plan increased. However, proximity to the provider was a more important factor for the higher-income Clinic plan subscribers. The data also show that the longer availability of the Clinic plan had a long-term effect on enrollment. A substantial proportion of long time Stanford employees who might have been expected to prefer the Kaiser plan stayed with the Clinic plan.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A A Scitovsky, N McCall, L Benham. 1978. Factor affecting the choice between two prepaid plans.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-197808000-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗