Quality Reporting on Medicare's Compare Sites: Lessons Learned from Consumer Research, 2001-2014
Key Findings
Key Findings:
- Circumstances surrounding the kinds of health care decisions that Medicare’s Compare tools are intended to inform vary markedly, and the assumptions underlying the concept of informed choice may not hold true.
- Consumers are largely unaware of the problems that quality measurement and reporting initiatives are intended to address.
- Consumers’ perceptions of quality are based on concrete phenomena they can observe firsthand.
- Plain language alone is not sufficient to make the meaning of quality measures clear to lay users.
Since CMS first began planning its quality initiatives and public reporting agenda, the authors of the report have researched quality reporting issues from a consumer perspective—from early formative research on information-seeking behavior, decision-making scenarios, and target audiences, to the development and testing of prototype Compare tools, cognitive testing of new measures and displays, and research on alternative reporting formats and organizational frameworks. Drawing on that body of research, this report offers insights about the interplay of factors that shape consumers’ perceptions and ability to engage with publicly reported information.
More like this from Mathematica
Featured Publication
Principles and Promising Practices for Hiring and Retaining Young Autistic Workers
Efficiency Meets Impact.
That's Progress Together.
To solve their most pressing challenges, organizations turn to Mathematica for deeply integrated expertise. We bring together subject matter and policy experts, data scientists, methodologists, and technologists who work across topics and sectors to help our partners design, improve, and scale evidence-based solutions.
Work With Us