IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i3p273-281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drug Benefit Decisions among Older Adults: A Policy-Capturing Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Richard R. Cline

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, cline011@umn.edu)

  • Kiran Gupta

    (College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis)

Abstract

Purpose . Under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, beneficiaries remaining in the traditional fee-for-service plan will face a variety of drug benefit options provided by private stand-alone prescription drug plans. Although these plans likely will differ with regard to a number of important attributes, little is known about older adults’ judgment processes in this context. The objectives of this study were to 1) better understand the manner in which drug insurance attributes are weighted in older adults’ judgments of drug benefit suitability, 2) explore variability in judgment strategies among seniors, and 3) assess seniors’ insight into their judgment policies. Methods . Three focus groups were conducted with 19 older adults to elicit important drug plan attributes. A policy-capturing study with 32 seniors, none of whom had participated in the focus groups, then was employed to quantify the impacts of these attributes on judgments of plan suitability. Results . Focus group participants reported that copayment, monthly premium, deductible, formulary use, and mail-order pharmacy use were important drug insurance attributes. The policy-capturing study showed that deductibles and premiums were weighted most heavily in judgment formation. However, significant variability in judgment policies was apparent, with 3 distinct groups emerging from cluster analysis. The first emphasized deductibles and copayments, the second premiums and deductibles, and the third use of a mail-order pharmacy and deductibles. Study volunteers exhibited insight into the role of some plan attributes in their judgments, but notm others. Conclusions. Cost-sharing provisions appear to be most important in older adults’ evaluations of drug benefit plans. However, significant heterogeneity in attribute preferences also was apparent in this study. Older adults may not be cognizant of the manner in which some plan attributes affect their evaluations, suggesting a role for decision aids in this process.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard R. Cline & Kiran Gupta, 2006. "Drug Benefit Decisions among Older Adults: A Policy-Capturing Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(3), pages 273-281, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:273-281
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06288682
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06288682
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06288682?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:273-281. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.