IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v345y2024ics0277953624001308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Administrative burden for patients in U.S. health care settings Post-Affordable Care Act: A scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Ilea, Passion
  • Ilea, Ian

Abstract

Administrative burdens are the costs associated with receiving a service or accessing a program. Based on the Herd & Moynihan framework, they occur in three subcategories: learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs. Administrative burdens manifest inequitably, more significantly impacting vulnerable populations. Administrative burdens may impact the health of those trying to access services, and in some cases block access to health-promoting services entirely. This scoping review examined studies focused on the impact on patients of administrative burden administrative burden in health care settings in the U.S. following the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We queried databases for empirical literature capturing patient administrative burden, retrieving 1578 records, with 31 articles ultimately eligible for inclusion. Of the 31 included studies, 18 used quantitative methods, nine used qualitative methods, three used mixed methods, and one was a case study. In terms of administrative burden subcategories, most patient outcomes reported were learning (22 studies) and compliance costs (26 studies). Psychological costs were the most rarely reported; all four studies describing psychological costs were qualitative in nature. Only twelve studies connected patient demographic data with administrative burden data, despite previous research suggesting an inequitable burden impact. Additionally, twenty-eight studies assessed administrative burden and only three attempted to reduce it via an intervention, resulting in a lack of data on intervention design and efficacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilea, Passion & Ilea, Ian, 2024. "Administrative burden for patients in U.S. health care settings Post-Affordable Care Act: A scoping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:345:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624001308
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624001308
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116686?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barnes, Andrew J. & Karpman, Michael & Long, Sharon K. & Hanoch, Yaniv & Rice, Thomas, 2021. "More intelligent designs: Comparing the effectiveness of choice architectures in US health insurance marketplaces," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 142-164.
    2. Nichols, Albert L & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1982. "Targeting Transfers through Restrictions on Recipients," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 372-377, May.
    3. Halling, Aske & Bækgaard, Martin, 2022. "Administrative Burden in Citizen-State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review," OSF Preprints 26xdj, Center for Open Science.
    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. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Matias Busso & Patrick Kline, 2008. "Do Local Economic Development Programs Work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    3. Hanming Fang & Peter Norman, 2014. "Toward an efficiency rationale for the public provision of private goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 375-408, June.
    4. Hoffmann, Bridget, 2018. "Do non-monetary prices target the poor? Evidence from a field experiment in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 15-32.
    5. Laura Castell & Marc Gurgand & Clément Imbert & Todor Tochev, 2024. "Take-up of Social Benefits: Experimental Evidence from France," Institut des Politiques Publiques halshs-04720989, HAL.
    6. Cairo, Sofie & Mahlstedt, Robert, 2021. "Transparency of the Welfare System and Labor Market Outcomes of Unemployed Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 14940, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Zeckhauser, Richard, 2021. "Strategic sorting: the role of ordeals in health care," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 64-81, March.
    8. Tomer Blumkin & Efraim Sadka & Yoram Margalioth, 2008. "The Role of Stigma in the Design of Welfare Programs," Working Papers 0806, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    9. Blomquist, Soren & Christiansen, Vidar, 1998. "Topping Up or Opting Out? The Optimal Design of Public Provision Schemes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(2), pages 399-411, May.
    10. Lee, David & Saez, Emmanuel, 2012. "Optimal minimum wage policy in competitive labor markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 739-749.
    11. Rema Hanna & Benjamin A. Olken, 2018. "Universal Basic Incomes vs. Targeted Transfers: Anti-Poverty Programs in Developing Countries," NBER Working Papers 24939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Eriksen, Michael D. & Lang, Bree J., 2020. "Overview and proposed reforms of the low-income housing tax credit program," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Robert A. Moffitt & Matthew V. Zahn, 2019. "The Marginal Labor Supply Disincentives of Welfare: Evidence from Administrative Barriers to Participation," NBER Working Papers 26028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. James M. Poterba, 1996. "Government Intervention in the Markets for Education and Health Care: How and Why?," NBER Chapters, in: Individual and Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in America, pages 277-308, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Raj Chetty & John N. Friedman & Nathaniel Hendren & Maggie R. Jones & Sonya R. Porter, 2018. "The Opportunity Atlas: Mapping the Childhood Roots of Social Mobility," Working Papers 18-42, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. Daniel Bjorkegren & Joshua E. Blumenstock & Samsun Knight, 2020. "Manipulation-Proof Machine Learning," Papers 2004.03865, arXiv.org.
    17. Cairo, Sofie & Mahlstedt, Robert, 2023. "The disparate effects of information provision: A field experiment on the work incentives of social welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    18. Rebecca M. Blank, 2002. "Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(4), pages 1105-1166, December.
    19. Wagner, Alexander F. & Miller, Nolan H. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2006. "Screening budgets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 351-374, November.
    20. repec:pri:cepsud:80rosen is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Cutler, David M. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2000. "The anatomy of health insurance," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 563-643, Elsevier.

    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:eee:socmed:v:345:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624001308. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.