IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350645.html

An evaluation of strategies commonly used by health advocate programs

Author

Listed:
  • Jingyao Huang
  • Diwakar Gupta

Abstract

Many non-urgent and routine medical procedures, such as MRI and CT Scans, are performed under standardized industry protocols with minimal process variations. However, large price variations exist among providers offering these services within the same geographic region. Many insurers and independent vendors have implemented health advocate/concierge programs to steer beneficiaries to high-quality and low-cost providers. These programs also aim to reduce costs. The Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Texas’ Benefits-Value-Advisor (BVA) program is one of the most cited examples. It uses three key strategies: recommendation, unconditional monetary rewards, and persuasion. However, their effectiveness in influencing beneficiaries’ choices, particularly for routine medical procedures, has not been tested. This study fills the gap through a behavioral experiment, which provides insights into how beneficiaries may respond to these strategies and providing guidance for health plan managers. A full-factorial-between-subjects experiment was conducted with 500 subjects recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The experiment design included three treatments: recommendation, copay waiver, and persuasion, each with two levels (Yes or No), resulting in eight distinct scenarios. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of eight scenarios. The survey data were analyzed using a logit regression model. We found that subjects who received recommendations were 32.7% more likely to select the lowest-cost provider and had a 27.3% greater chance of choosing lower-cost providers. However, the effectiveness of recommendations diminished when subjects mistrusted their insurance companies. Neither copay waiver nor persuasion had a significant impact on provider choice. We acknowledge that these findings are derived from a hypothetical experimental setting using an online sample, and that actual beneficiary behavior in clinical settings may differ due to additional factors such as physician referrals, appointment availability, urgency of medical needs and convenience. Our results should be interpreted as providing suggestive evidence rather than directly generalizable predictions of real-world behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingyao Huang & Diwakar Gupta, 2026. "An evaluation of strategies commonly used by health advocate programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350645
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350645
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350645&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350645?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Goli & Amandeep Singh, 2024. "Frontiers: Can Large Language Models Capture Human Preferences?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 709-722, July.
    2. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus, 2009. "Time is not money," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 96-102, October.
    2. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    3. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    4. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    5. Vollmer Uwe, 2004. "Streissler, E.W. (Hrsg.), Studien zur Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie XIX," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 224(6), pages 758-759, December.
    6. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    7. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    8. Maida, Agata & Pezone, Vincenzo, 2024. "CEO Pay Disclosure and Within-Firm Wage Inequality," IZA Discussion Papers 17243, IZA Network @ LISER.
    9. Dufwenberg, Martin & Patel, Amrish, 2019. "Introduction to special issue on psychological game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 181-184.
    10. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    11. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    12. Antonides, Gerrit & Kroft, Maaike, 2005. "Fairness judgments in household decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 902-913, December.
    13. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    14. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    15. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2016-029 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, IZA Network @ LISER.
    17. Stracke, Rudi & Hörtnagl, Tanja & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Competing for Market Shares: Why the Order of Moves Matters Even When It Shouldn't," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145532, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    19. Thieme, Lutz & Winkelhake, Olaf & Hartmann, Ulrich, 2014. "Fairness als universelle Norm? Empirische Evidenz ohne Manna [Fairness as a universal norm? Empiric evidence without manna]," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 12, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.