Search

For patients to be engaged, they will need meaningful and comparable information about the quality and cost of health care. We conducted a literature review and key-informant interviews, reviewed selected online reporting tools, and found that quality and cost reporting fell into two categories. One emphasizes public reporting of information, supported by philanthropic or government institutions that aim to improve provider quality and efficiency. The other is characterized by proprietary websites that aim to provide personalized, integrated information on cost and quality to support consumers' decision making on providers and services. What consumers seem to want is quality data at the physician level and cost data that reflect their personal out-of-pocket exposure. These needs will be acute under the coverage expansions inherent in the Affordable Care Act. State and federal policy thus should support all-payer claims databases, standards for electronic health records to facilitate sharing of quality data, and a unified approach to presenting information that prioritizes consumers' needs.

We undertook focus groups, interviews, and an online survey with health care consumers as part of a recent project to assist purchasers in communicating more effectively about health care evidence and quality. Most of the consumers were ages 18-64; had health insurance through a current employer; and had taken part in making decisions about health insurance coverage for themselves, their spouse, or someone else. We found many of these consumers' beliefs, values, and knowledge to be at odds with what policy makers prescribe as evidence-based health care. Few consumers understood terms such as "medical evidence" or "quality guidelines." Most believed that more care meant higher-quality, better care. The gaps in knowledge and misconceptions point to serious challenges in engaging consumers in evidence-based decision making.

High-deductible health plans--with and without spending accounts--are gaining ground. Will these evolving benefit designs complement or undermine the coordination of care for patients with chronic illnesses? Based on an October 2005 roundtable sponsored by the California HealthCare Foundation and Health Affairs, this paper discusses the implications of a changing health insurance market for the chronically ill, capitation payment for medical groups, and consumers navigating the system.