Diabetes Microvascular Disease Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Health Plan Enrollment

Enrollment in High-Deductible Health Plans and Incident Diabetes Complications

Importance

Preventing diabetes complications requires monitoring and control of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors. Switching to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has been shown to hinder aspects of diabetes care; however, the association of HDHP enrollment with microvascular and macrovascular diabetes complications is unknown.

Objective

To examine the association between an employer-required switch to an HDHP and incident complications of diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for US adults with diabetes enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from May 26, 2022, to January 2, 2024.

Exposures

Adults with a baseline year of non-HDHP enrollment who had to switch to an HDHP because their employer offered no non-HDHP alternative in that year were compared with adults who were continuously enrolled in a non-HDHP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mixed-effects logistic regression models examined the association between switching to an HDHP and, individually, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, lower-extremity complication, end-stage kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, treatment for retinopathy, and blindness. Models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and medications, with inverse propensity score weighting used to account for potential selection bias.

Results

The study included 42 326 adults who switched to an HDHP (mean [SD] age, 52 [10] years; 19 752 [46.7%] female) and 202 729 adults who did not switch (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 89 828 [44.3%] female). Those who switched to an HDHP had greater odds of experiencing all diabetes complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16 for myocardial infarction; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21 for stroke; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.41 for hospitalization for heart failure; OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 2.38-2.70 for end-stage kidney disease; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.17-2.29 for lower-extremity complication; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21 for proliferative retinopathy; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.18-2.54 for blindness; and OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.15-2.41 for retinopathy treatment).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that an employer-driven switch to an HDHP was associated with increased odds of experiencing all diabetes complications. These findings reinforce the potential harm associated with HDHPs for people with diabetes and the importance of affordable and accessible chronic disease management, which is hindered by high out-of-pocket costs incurred by HDHPs.

Did Access to Ambulatory Care Moderate the Associations Between Visit Mode and Ancillary Services Utilization Across the COVID-19 Pandemic Period?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

In recent years, 2 circumstances changed provider-patient interactions in primary care: the substitution of virtual (eg, video) for in-person visits and the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied whether access to care might affect patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders for ambulatory diagnosis and management of incident neck or back pain (NBP) and incident urinary tract infection (UTI) for virtual versus in-person visits.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente Regions to identify incident NBP and UTI visits from January 2016 through June 2021. Visit modes were classified as virtual (Internet-mediated synchronous chats, telephone visits, or video visits) or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic [before the beginning of the national emergency (April 2020)] or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders were measured for 5 service classes each for NBP and UTI. Differences in percentages of fulfillments were compared between modes within periods and between periods within the mode to assess the possible impact of 3 moderators: distance from residence to primary care clinic, high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment, and prior use of a mail-order pharmacy program.

RESULTS

For diagnostic radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services, percentages of fulfilled orders were generally >70-80%. Given an incident NBP or UTI visit, longer distance to the clinic and higher cost-sharing due to HDHP enrollment did not significantly suppress patients' fulfillment of ancillary services orders. Prior use of mail-order prescriptions significantly promoted medication order fulfillments on virtual NBP visits compared with in-person NBP visits in the prepandemic period (5.9% vs. 2.0%, P=0.01) and in the recovery period (5.2% vs. 1.6%, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Distance to the clinic or HDHP enrollment had minimal impact on the fulfillment of diagnostic or prescribed medication services associated with incident NBP or UTI visits delivered virtually or in-person; however, prior use of mail-order pharmacy option promoted fulfillment of prescribed medication orders associated with NBP visits.

A Medical and Moral Imperative: Testimony for the U.S. Senate Budget Committee "Medicare for All" Hearing

On May 12, 2022, Senator Bernie Sanders held a hearing in the U.S. Senate Budget Committee on Medicare for All legislation. These were the first such hearings in the U.S. Senate. In testimony presented to the Budget Committee, I argued that the achievement of Medicare for All was a medical and moral imperative. I explored the problem of uninsurance, noting that 30 million Americans remain uninsured at a cost of more than 30,000 deaths annually. I contended that improving the quality of coverage was equally crucial, describing how some 41 million Americans remain underinsured at a grave cost to their health and financial wellbeing. Finally, I examined the economics of Medicare for All reform, and showed how the reduction of the enormous administrative waste in American healthcare could save hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Medicare for All, I concluded, is the one health reform that could expand and improve coverage for all while simultaneously controlling costs.