Why health plans need to work harder to reach consumers under 44

SDoH and health equity survey

To obtain current consumer data, Engagys implemented a social determinant of health (SDoH) screen and collected answers from 570 respondents, aged 18 or older. The survey was designed to mirror the U.S. population and to qualify, respondents were required to have received health care services in the U.S. in the past 12 months. By creating this dataset, Engagys was able to look for relationships that may be difficult to find in top line results published elsewhere. Survey data revealed differing generational health care experiences compounded by a correlation between medical delay and patient age, differences in treatment quality, as well as disparities in health confidence.

To read more details about Engagys’ survey, take a look at this previous RISE article.

                                                     Young U.S. consumers are vulnerable

Engagys’ SDoH survey revealed that the 30-44 age group is lagging behind older populations on key factors. When it comes to delay of care, the group most likely to agree that they had delayed or not received medical care within the past 12 months was the 30-44 age segment, at 51 percent. In contrast, only 35 percent of those aged 60+ said they delayed or did not receive care. According to the survey, as patients increase in age, the percentage of medical delay decreases.

Additionally, respondents over the age of 45 were 29 percent more likely to agree that they were able to get all their health-related questions answered compared to those under the age of 30. While the majority, 60 percent, of survey participants aged 18-29 responded that they agreed that they were able to get the help they needed across different providers and services, this number jumps over 20 points to 83 percent for respondents aged 60+.

We also see a difference in response when it comes to health confidence. Eighty-nine percent of respondents aged 60+ and 82 percent of respondents aged 45-60 agreed that they feel confident in their ability to take care of themselves, but this number drops to just 64 percent for participants aged 18-29. This finding is especially interesting for health plans because confidence in one’s ability to take care of oneself has been shown to be an effective proxy for engagement and a predictor of health outcomes. Specifically, studies indicate that a person’s confidence in their ability to do a difficult, health-related task is a strong predictor of engagement in–and performance of–that task. 1

The Generation Z+ health care gap

As noted previously, the percentage of medical delay decreases as patients increase in age, creating a lopsided system where older populations are having a more positive experience while those under the age of 44 are struggling to progress within the same industry.

A previous Engagys survey may help explain this phenomenon. Conducted in June of 2022, a Gen Z health care survey polled over 100 respondents aged 17-25. While 100 percent of respondents reported having health insurance with 96 percent being on their parent/family plan, roughly 50 percent responded that they didn’t fully understand health insurance. Additionally, 69 percent responded that they were not receiving communications from their health plan and instead were getting their questions answered by their parent/primary card holder. Gen Z also reports wishing that the health care landscape was easier to understand and needing support to do so.

The findings in the 2023 survey and the 2022 Gen Z survey suggest that as consumers age through the health care system, they gain knowledge, expertise, and confidence within that system. Both surveys reveal that health plans are challenged with supporting younger generations so that they can keep pace with other age groups, to close the confidence and comprehension gap.  

1 Miller, S. M., Shoda, Y., & Hurley, K. (1996). Applying cognitive-social theory to health-protective behavior: Breast self-examination in cancer screening. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.70