Examining public knowledge and preferences for adult preventive services coverage

Examining public knowledge and preferences for adult preventive services coverage Williams, Jessica A. R.; Ortiz, Selena E. Introduction: To examine (1) what individuals know about the existing adult preventive service coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and (2) which preventive services individuals think should be covered without cost sharing. Methods: An online panel from Survey Monkey was used to obtain a sample of 2,990 adults age 18 and older in March 2015, analyzed 2015–2017. A 17-item survey instrument was designed and used to evaluate respondents’ knowledge of the adult preventive services provision of the ACA. Additionally, we asked whether various preventive services should be covered. The data include age, sex, race/ethnicity, and educational attainment as well as measures of political ideology, previous insurance status, the number of chronic conditions, and usual source of care. Results: Respondents correctly answered 38.6% of the questions about existing coverage under the ACA, while on average respondents thought 12.1 of 15 preventive services should be covered (SD 3.5). Respondents were more knowledgeable about coverage for routine screenings, such as blood pressure (63.4% correct) than potentially stigmatizing screenings, such as for alcohol misuse (28.8% correct). Blood pressure screening received the highest support of coverage (89.8%) while coverage of gym memberships received the lowest support (59.4%). Individuals with conservative ideologies thought fewer services on average should be covered, but the difference was small—around one service less than those with liberal ideologies. Conclusions: Overwhelmingly, individuals think that most preventive services should be covered without cost sharing. Despite several years of coverage for preventive services, there is still confusion and lack of knowledge about which services are covered. A grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml.