Skip to main content
Log in

The Health Insurance Puzzle: A New Approach to Assessing Patient Coverage Preferences

  • Published:
Journal of Community Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies of preferences for health insurance benefits have required individuals to make a series of complex and repetitive decisions, and have assumed that all insured benefits are desirable. This study reports the development and testing of a simple, innovative instrument to measure preferences for health insurance benefits. The newly developed instrument (Puzzle) is designed to allow subjects to select health benefits in a way that underscores the trade-offs dictated by budgets and costs. A “puzzle-like” frame representing budget constraints and “puzzle piece” benefit cards proportionately sized to represent the premium price of a single year's coverage comprise the instrument. In a comparison procedure (Money Game), participants “purchase” individual benefits by exchanging “play” money for benefit tokens. The Puzzle's utility was assessed by examining the convergence of results from both instruments and the subject's ratings of and preference for the instruments. One hundred five elderly Medicare enrollees seen in the general Internal Medicine outpatient clinic of a major southeastern teaching hospital were interviewed. Subjects answered interviewer-administered questionnaires and completed both the Puzzle and the Money Game. Both McNemar's test and Kendall's tau-b indicated a high degree of concordance between benefit choices made using the two instruments. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that the Puzzle was clear, easy to use, understandable, and preferred to the Money Game. The results suggest that the Puzzle is a promising tool for assessing health insurance coverage preferences under circumstances of limited expenditures, which can be modified for use with various populations who face limited insurance benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berki SE, Ashcraft ML. HMO enrollment: Who joins what and why: A review of the literature. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1980; 4:588-632.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mechanic D, Ettel T, Davis D. Choosing among health insurance options: A study of new employees. Inquiry 1990; 27:14-23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grazier KL, Richardson WC, Martin DP, Diehr P. Factors affecting choice of health care plans. Health Serv Res 1986; 20:659-682.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sofaer S, Kenney E, Davidson B. The effect of the illness episode approach on Medicare beneficiaries' health insurance decisions. Health Serv Res 1992; 27:671-693.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fowler FJ, Berwick DM, Roman A, Massagli MP. Measuring public priorities for insurable health care. Med Care 1994; 32:625-639.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975; 23:433-441.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Health Care Financing Administration. Medicare and Medicaid statistical supplement, 1995. Health Care Financ Rev 1995:28.

  8. Danis M, Biddle AK, Henderson G, Garrett JM, DeVellis RF. Elderly Medicare enrollees' choices for insured services. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45:688-694.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Am Stat Assoc 1959; 58:690-700.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McNemar Q. Note on how the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947; 12:153-157.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Daniel WW. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, Co., 1978, pp 146-150, 306-315.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, pp 130-131.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Havighurst CC. Prospective self-denial: Can consumers contract today to accept health care rationing tomorrow? University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1992; 140:1755-1808.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biddle, A.K., DeVellis, R.F., Henderson, G. et al. The Health Insurance Puzzle: A New Approach to Assessing Patient Coverage Preferences. Journal of Community Health 23, 181–194 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018716414735

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018716414735

Keywords

Navigation