A 2023 survey of more than 1,400 Georgia adults, conducted from July 26 to July 31, 2023, found that
many respondents face challenges confidently navigating the health care system and understanding their
cost-sharing obligations. These challenges are sometimes attributed to low levels of health insurance
literacy.1 Inadequate health literacy2 (a closely related concept) has been associated with poorer health
outcomes, lower patient satisfaction, and higher costs.3 This brief surfaces respondents’ experiences
operating within the health care system, along with support for related policy solutions.
Many Georgia respondents report being confident in their ability to follow the directions provided by
their doctor or fill a prescription (see Figure 1). However, they are far less confident when dealing with
cost issues, such as disputing a medical bill or finding out the cost of a procedure ahead of time. In
addition, less than half of respondents are confident they can take steps to fix a problem if their doctor,
hospital, or health plan is not being responsive to their concerns.
This data supports findings that respondents are frequently not confident in their ability to navigate
various aspects of the health care system and may be unprepared to manage challenging outcomes, such as unexpected medical bills. Among those who received unexpected medical bills in the past 12 months, 9% reported paying the bill without disputing it. Some reported taking initial steps like contacting their health plan (30%) or contacting their doctor, hospital, or lab (30%), but very few took other possible steps to resolve the bill (see Table 1). Ultimately, 28% report being dissatisfied with the resolution of their
Over 2 in 5 (46%) of respondents were not confident that they could find the cost of a procedure ahead
of time. While many of the respondents who searched for price and quality information successfully found
the information that they were looking for, there were still respondents who either could not find the cost
information they were looking for or did not look for cost information ahead of time even though they
needed a service (see Figure 2).
The most frequent reasons respondents reported not seeking out price or quality information were:
Notably, few of these respondents reported that out-of-pocket cost or quality were unimportant to them
(10% and 6%, respectively). These reasons could also be influenced by this information not being
accessible, despite federal price transparency mandates for hospitals.4
Respondents who attempted to find hospital cost or quality information but were unsuccessful reported
facing a variety of barriers. Many respondents who were unsuccessful in their search for cost information
reported that the available resources showing cost information were confusing (38%), their insurance plan
or their provider/doctor/hospital would not give them a price estimate (32% and 37%, respectively), and
that price information was insufficient (27%). In unsuccessful searches for hospital quality information,
respondents reported that resources available to search for quality information were confusing (26%) and
that the quality information available was not sufficient (17%).
Lack of knowledge of hospital quality and potential costs may impede consumers’ ability to plan for
needed care and budget for the expense of a hospital stay, which can be costly,5 particularly for those who are un- or under-insured.
Consistently understanding common health care system terms and cost-sharing obligations remains
challenging for many Georgia respondents.
When given multiple choices, respondents were able to choose the correct definitions for premium and
deductible over two-thirds of the time, but less than half were able to accurately define coinsurance (see
Figure 3). This aligns with a national study that found half of insured adults say they find at least one
aspect of how their insurance works—such as what it covers, what their out-of-pocket costs will be, and
common terminology—at least somewhat difficult to understand. 6 Ultimately, difficulty understanding
cost-sharing terms and other components of the system may make it harder for consumers to navigate
the health care system, get needed care, and anticipate the out-of-pocket costs they will be expected to
pay. Efforts to improve health insurance literacy may address this consumer hindrance.
There is also a lack of consensus on the definition of health care quality: 41% of respondents indicated that they believe that health care quality refers to how doctors and office staff treat patients, such as bedside manner, while other respondents indicated that they believe health care quality refers to doctors and hospitals being credentialed and following evidence-based guidelines (34%) or how quickly and how well the patient recovers (25%). This lack of consensus on defining health care quality may impact how
consumers interpret transparency tools and quality information, adding to the confusion and complexity
of navigating the health care system.
Relationship Between Quality and Price
Studies show there is little relationship between the quality and the price of a medical service7 and few
respondents (28%) believe that a less expensive doctor is providing lower-quality care. However, nearly
two-thirds (65%) of Georgia respondents believe that higher quality health care usually comes at a higher
cost and 41% reported that they would be willing to pay more to see a doctor with higher quality ratings.
Both cost and quality are important to Georgia’s health care consumers. Over half (53%) of Georgia
respondents indicated that, if two doctors or health care providers had equal quality ratings, out-of-pocket costs would be a very or extremely important factor in deciding between the two professionals.
Conversely, 55% of respondents indicated that, if two providers’ out-of-pocket costs were equal, quality
ratings would be a very or extremely important factor in deciding between the two professionals.
Thirty-one percent of Georgia respondents reported receiving an unexpected medical expense in the
prior 12 months. The rate was highest among respondents with health insurance they purchase on their
own (41%), compared to those with insurance through their employer (38%), Georgia Medicaid (31%), or
These unexpected bills take different forms. Of the respondents reporting that they received an
Smaller numbers reported being charged out-of-network rates when they thought the doctor was in-
network (17%), being charged for services they did not receive (12%), or experiencing something else
unexpected (17%). As noted above, nine out of ten (91%) Georgia respondents who received a surprise bill attempted to resolve the bill before paying it. As a first step, 30% contacted the doctor, hospital, or lab
and 30% contacted their insurance plan to resolve their unexpected medical bill (Table 1).
Over half (56%) of Georgia respondents with an unexpected medical bill took more than one step to
resolve the unexpected bill. However, either as a first or second step, very few reported using any of the
following strategies to resolve their bill:
Among Georgia respondents who had an unexpected medical bill, just 35% indicated that the issue was
resolved to their satisfaction (see Table 2).
For those whose bill was resolved by the time of the survey, most paid the bill in full or through a payment
plan. A minority got relief from the bill, either by negotiating a lower bill or having the bill dismissed (see
Table 3). Twelve percent had their bill sent to collections.
High numbers of both satisfied and dissatisfied respondents report attempting to contact their health
plan, doctor, hospital, or lab to resolve the unexpected bill. However, consumers satisfied with how their
medical bill was resolved reported having tried other strategies, such as filing an appeal. In contrast,
consumers who reported being dissatisfied with how their medical bill was resolved more often reported
paying their bill without disputing it. Perhaps not surprisingly, those that felt satisfied with how their
medical bill was resolved were more likely to have either negotiated a lower payment or had their bill
written off or dismissed.
When it comes to tackling problems in the health care system, respondents endorsed a number of
transparency-oriented strategies, including:
Moreover, respondents endorsed these approaches across party lines (see Table 4).
While Georgia respondents report confidence in their ability to follow directions from their doctor or fill a
prescription, they are less confident when dealing with cost issues and resolving problems with providers,
health plans, and hospitals. Furthermore, consumers’ poor understanding of some common terms may
make it difficult to anticipate out-of-pockets costs and budget for health care expenses. These difficulties
may contribute to the receipt of unexpected medical bills, amplify affordability burdens, and impede their
ability to resolve the resulting bills to their satisfaction.
Price transparency tools can aid consumers by allowing them to plan for the expense of needed health
care services and may also enable state policymakers to address unwarranted price variation. However,
price transparency alone does not make markets more efficient, and transparency tools are generally not
successful at getting consumers to shop for lower-priced services.9 Instead, a combination of price transparency tools and evidence-based policies should be used to increase health literacy across the state. Georgia survey respondents endorsed a range of policy fixes that elected officials could pursue, both transparency- and non-transparency-related.
Altarum’s Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey (CHESS) is designed to elicit respondents’ unbiased views on a wide range of health system issues, including confidence using the health system, financial burden and possible policy solutions.
This survey, conducted from July 11 to July 24, 2023, used a web panel from online survey company Dynata with a demographically balanced sample of approximately 1,500 respondents who live in Louisiana. Information about Dynata’s recruitment and compensation methods can be found here. The survey was conducted in English or Spanish and restricted to adults ages 18 and older. Respondents who finished the survey in less than half the median time were excluded from the final sample, leaving 1,444 cases for analysis. After those exclusions, the demographic composition of respondents was as follows,
although not all demographic information has complete response rates:
Percentages in the body of the brief are based on weighted values, while the data presented in the demographic table is unweighted. An explanation of weighted versus unweighted variables is available here. Altarum does not conduct statistical calculations on the significance of differences between groups in findings. Therefore, determinations that one group experienced a significantly different affordability burden than another should not be inferred. Rather, comparisons are for conversational purposes. The groups selected for this brief were selected by advocate partners in each state based on organizational/advocacy priorities. We do not report any estimates under N=100 and a co-efficient of variance more than 0.30.