Insulin Fills by Medicare Enrollees and Out-of-Pocket Caps Under the Inflation Reduction Act

This study uses data from IQVIA’s National Prescription Audit to assess the association of the Inflation Reduction Act’s cap on cost sharing with insulin fills by Medicare beneficiaries.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design

BACKGROUND

The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown.

METHODS

We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD.

RESULTS

Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone.

CONCLUSIONS

Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Trends in and Factors Associated With Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations From March 2020 to March 2021

This cross-sectional study assessed the factors associated with out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations from March 2020 to March 2021

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020

IMPORTANCE

Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport).

RESULTS

Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

Cost-sharing With Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: Obligations and Propensity to Pay

BACKGROUND

Six states expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have obtained waivers to incorporate cost-sharing.

OBJECTIVE

We describe the magnitude and distribution of cost-sharing imposed by the Healthy Michigan Plan and enrollees' propensity to pay.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Enrollees are followed for at least 18 months (6-mo baseline period for utilization and spending before receipt of first cost-sharing statement; ≥12 mo follow-up thereafter to ascertain obligations and payments). Analyses stratified by income, comparing enrollees with income less than Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who faced only utilization-based copayments and those greater than or equal to FPL who also faced premium contributions.

SUBJECTS

A total of 158,322 enrollees aged 22-62 who initially enrolled during the first year of the program and remained continuously enrolled ≥18 months.

RESULTS

Among those enrolled ≥18 months, 51.0% faced cost-sharing. Average quarterly invoices were $4.85 ($11.11 for those with positive invoices) for income less than FPL and $26.71 ($30.93 for those with positive invoices) for incomes greater than or equal to FPL. About half of enrollees with obligations made at least partial payments, with payments being more likely among those >100% FPL. Payment of the full obligation was highest in the initial 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Many payment obligations go uncollected, suggesting that in a system without the threat of disenrollment, the impacts of cost-sharing may be muted. Similarly, the ability of cost-sharing to defray the program's budgetary impact may also be less than anticipated.

Effects of inadequate coverage on healthcare utilization: A regression discontinuity analysis

To examine the impact of inadequate health insurance coverage on physician utilization among older adults using a novel quasi-experimental design in the time period following the elimination of cost sharing for most preventative services under the US Affordable Care Act of 2010.The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full year consolidated data files for the period 2010 to 2017 were used to construct a pooled cross-sectional dataset of adults aged 60 to 70. Regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the impact of transitioning between non-Medicare and Medicare plans on use of routine office-based physician visits and emergency room visits.For the overall population, gaining access to Medicare at age 65 is associated with a higher propensity to make routine office-based visits (2.94 percentage points [pp]; P < .01) and lower out-of-pocket costs (-23.86 pp; P < .01) Similarly, disenrollment from non-Medicare insurance plans at age 66 was associated with more routine office-based visits (3.01 pp; P < .01) and less out-of-pocket costs (-8.09 pp; P < .10). However, some minority groups reported no changes in visits and out-of-pocket costs or reported an increased propensity to make emergency department visits.Enrollment into Medicare from non-Medicare insurance plans was associated with increased use of routine office-based services and lower out-of-pocket costs. However, some subgroups reported no changes in routine visits or costs or an increased propensity to make emergency department visits. These findings suggest other nonfinancial, structural barriers may exist that limit patient's ability to access routine services.

Mandated Copayment Reductions in Medicare Advantage: Effects on Skilled Nursing Care, Hospitalizations, and Plan Exit

OBJECTIVES

To address concerns that postacute cost-sharing may deter high-need beneficiaries from participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have capped cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services in MA plans since 2011. This study examines whether SNF use, inpatient use, and plan disenrollment changed following stricter regulations in 2015 that required most MA plans to eliminate or substantially reduce cost-sharing for SNF care.

DESIGN

Difference-in-differences retrospective analysis from 2013 to 2016.

SETTING

MA plans.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one million MA members in 320 plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions and 261 plans without such reductions.

MEASUREMENTS

Mean monthly number of SNF admissions, SNF days, hospitalizations, and plan disenrollees per 1000 members.

RESULTS

Mean total cost-sharing for the first 20 days of SNF services decreased from $911 to $104 in affected plans. Relative to concurrent changes in plans without mandated cost-sharing reductions, plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions experienced no significant differences in the number of SNF days per 1000 members (adjusted between-group difference: 0.4 days per 1000 members [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -5.2 to 6.0, P=0.89], small decreases in the number of hospitalizations per 1000 members [adjusted between-group difference: 0.6 admissions per 1000 members (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P=0.03)], and small decreases in the number of SNF users who disenrolled at year-end [adjusted between-group difference: -16.8 disenrollees per 1000 members (95% CI, -31.9 to -1.8; P=0.03)].

CONCLUSIONS

Mandated reductions in SNF cost-sharing may have curbed selective disenrollment from MA plans without significantly increasing use of SNF services.

Assessment of Behavioral Health Services Use Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries After Reductions in Coinsurance Fees

IMPORTANCE

Medicare has historically imposed higher beneficiary coinsurance for behavioral health services than for medical and surgical care but gradually introduced parity between 2009 and 2014. Although Medicare insures many people with serious mental illness (SMI), there is limited information on the impact of coinsurance parity in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between coinsurance parity and outpatient behavioral health care use among low-income beneficiaries with SMI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used Medicare claims data for a 50% national sample of lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. The study sample included patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to July 15, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Reduction in behavioral health care coinsurance from 50% to 20% between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total annual spending for outpatient behavioral health care visits and the percentage of beneficiaries with an annual outpatient behavioral health care visit overall, with a prescriber, and with a psychiatrist. A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare outcomes before and after the reduction in coinsurance for beneficiaries with and without cost-sharing decreases. Linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects that adjusted for time-changing beneficiary- and area-level covariates were used to examine changes in outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 793 275 beneficiaries with SMI in 2008; 518 893 (65.4%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [16.1] years), 511 265 (64.4%) were female, and 552 056 (69.6%) were White. In 2008, the adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with an outpatient behavioral health care visit was 40.7% (95% CI, 40.4%-41.0%) among those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction and 44.9% (95% CI, 44.9%-45.0%) among those with free care. The mean adjusted out-of-pocket costs for outpatient behavioral health care visits decreased from $132 (95% CI, $129-$136) in 2008 to $64 (95% CI, $61-$66) in 2016 among those with reductions in cost-sharing. The adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with behavioral health care visits increased to 42.2% (95% CI, 41.9%-42.5%) in the group with a reduction in coinsurance and to 47.2% (95% CI, 47.0%-47.3%) in the group with free care. The cost-sharing reduction was not positively associated with visits (eg, relative change of -0.76 percentage points [95% CI, -1.12 to -0.40 percentage points] in the percentage of beneficiaries with outpatient behavioral health care visits in 2016 vs 2008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that beneficiary costs for outpatient behavioral health care decreased between 2009 and 2014. There was no association between cost-sharing reductions and changes in behavioral health care visits. Low levels of use in this high-need population suggest the need for other policy efforts to address additional barriers to behavioral health care.

Savings or Selection? Initial Spending Reductions in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Considerations for Reform

Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy.

CONTEXT

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels.

METHODS

We conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses.

FINDINGS

MSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.

Medicare Part D and Cost-Sharing for Antiretroviral Therapy and Preexposure Prophylaxis

IMPORTANCE

The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications.

RESULTS

In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24 010 to $46 770 annually (median price, $35 780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12 770-$31 270). The price of PrEP was $20 570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10 260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35 000 annually for ART and>$20 000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.

Association of daily copayments with use of hospital care among medicare advantage enrollees

BACKGROUND

While the traditional Medicare program imposes a deductible for hospital admissions, many Medicare Advantage plans have instituted per-diem copayments for hospital care. Little evidence exists about the effects of changes in cost-sharing for hospital care among the elderly. Changing inpatient benefits from a deductible to a per diem may benefit enrollees with shorter lengths of stay, but adversely affect the out-of-pocket burden for hospitalized enrollees with longer lengths of stay.

METHODS

We used a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study to compare longitudinal changes in proportion hospitalized, inpatient admissions and days per 100 enrollees, and hospital length of stay between enrollees in MA plans that changed inpatient benefit from deductible at admission to per diem, intervention plans, and enrollees in matched control plans - similar plans that maintained inpatient deductibles. The study population included 423,634 unique beneficiaries enrolled in 23 intervention plans and 36 matched control plans in the 2007-2010 period.

RESULTS

The imposition of per-diem copayments were associated with adjusted declines of 1.3 admissions/100 enrollees (95% CI - 1.8 to - 0.9), 6.9 inpatient days/100 enrollees (95% CI - 10.1 to - 3.8) and 0.7 percentage points in the probability of hospital admission (95% CI - 1.0 to - 0.4), with no significant change in adjusted length of stay in intervention plans relative to control plans. For persons with 2 or more hospitalizations in the year prior to the cost-sharing change, adjusted declines were 3.5 admissions/100 (95% CI - 8.4 to 1.4), 31.1 days/100 (95% CI - 75.2 to 13.0) and 2.2 percentage points in the probability of hospitalization (95% CI - 3.8 to - 0.6) in intervention plans relative to control plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Instituting per-diem copayments was associated with reductions in number of admissions and hospital stays, but not length of stay once admitted. Effects of inpatient cost-sharing changes were magnified for persons with greater baseline use of hospital care.

Cost-sharing payments for out-of-network care in commercially insured adults

OBJECTIVES

Providers who do not contract with insurance plans are considered out-of-network (OON) providers. There were 2 objectives in this study: (1) to examine the variations of OON cost sharing, both at the state level and by care settings, and (2) to investigate the pattern of OON care use and cost sharing associated with OON care over time.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary data analysis using claims data of employer-sponsored insurance enrollees.

METHODS

The study sample included adults aged 18 to 64 years who were continuously enrolled for at least a full calendar year with medical and prescription drug coverage and for whom OON care payment data were available. We examined levels and distributions of cost sharing for OON care from 2012 to 2017, in both emergency department (ED) and non-ED care settings. Outcome measures included annual use of health plan-covered OON care and total out-of-pocket (OOP) cost sharing for OON care. We also measured the use of and cost-sharing spending for OON care based on urgency and site of service. Logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the probability of OON care. Among those with each type of OON care, a generalized linear regression model was used to estimate the OOP spending on OON care.

RESULTS

Slowly decreasing rates of OON care over time occurred in different care settings and at different urgency levels. The cost-sharing amounts for OON care rose rapidly from 2012 through 2016, before slowing slightly in 2017. The growth of cost sharing for OON care during nonemergent hospitalizations especially increased from $671 to $1286 during the study period. The amount enrollees spent on OON care grew in most states, but there were substantial variations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-sharing payments for OON care represent a growing financial burden for some enrollees. Consumers should be held harmless from higher cost sharing for OON care when it occurs without their knowledge or consent. Further, health plan network adequacy may also merit closer scrutiny. Leveraging provider participation in narrow networks must be balanced with broader consumer protections.

Modest risk-sharing significantly reduces health plans' incentives for service distortion

Public payers often use payment mechanisms as a way to improve the efficiency of the healthcare system. One source of inefficiency is service distortion (SD) in which health plans over/underprovide services in order to affect the mix of their enrollees. Using Israeli data, we apply a new measure of SD to show that a mixed payment scheme, with a modest level of cost-sharing, yields a significant improvement over a pure risk-adjustment scheme. This observation implies that even though mixed systems induce overprovision of some services, their benefits far outweigh their costs.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Initiation, Cost Sharing, and Health Care Utilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: A Retrospective Claims-Based Study

BACKGROUND

For newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients, early access to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is a consistent predictor of adherence and optimal response. The expense of targeted therapies, however, may result in high out-of-pocket costs for initiating therapy that could be a barrier to starting treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between TKI out-of-pocket costs, initiation, and health care utilization and costs among patients who initiated TKI within 12 months after initial CML diagnosis.

METHODS

Individuals aged 18-64 years with an initial diagnosis of CML were identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database between April 11, 2011, and December 31, 2014. The association between cost sharing and TKI initiation was evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model applied to patients receiving therapy within a month of diagnosis and within 1-12 months after diagnosis. Health care utilization was compared using negative binomial regression models. Health care cost differences between the 2 patient groups were estimated using generalized linear models. All models were controlled for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 477 patients, with 397 (83.2%) patients initiating TKI within the first month of CML diagnosis and 80 (16.8%) after the first month. Out-of-pocket costs for the initial 30-day supply of TKI medications were not found to be a significant predictor of TKI initiation time. Patients initiating therapy within a month were less likely to have all-cause hospitalizations (IRR = 0.35; P = 0.02) or CML-specific hospitalizations (IRR = 0.27; P < 0.01). Over the 12-month follow-up period, they incurred $9,923 more in TKI pharmacy costs (P < 0.05), but patients initiating therapy after the first month of diagnosis incurred $7,582 more in medical costs, $218 more in non-TKI pharmacy costs, and $2,680 more in total health care costs (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with TKI initiation within the first month of diagnosis had higher TKI pharmacy costs that were partially offset by lower medical and non-TKI pharmacy costs, resulting in lower overall total health care costs. Findings suggest that earlier TKI initiation may reduce the risks of hospitalizations, which could result in potential medical cost savings in the first 12 months of treatment.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no relationships or financial interests to report with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article. A poster presentation of the study was made at the 11th American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved, on November 2-5, 2018, in New Orleans, LA.

Effects of improvements in the CPS on the estimated prevalence of medical financial burdens

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effects of questionnaire and imputation improvements in the Current Population Survey (CPS) on the estimated prevalence of high medical financial burden, that is, families spending more than 10 percent of income on medical care.

DATA SOURCE

Matched longitudinal sample of CPS data for 2013 and 2014 calendar years.

STUDY DESIGN

The CPS used a split-sample design to field traditional and redesigned questions about 2013 income, and old and new out-of-pocket premium imputation procedures, respectively. For both samples, CPS data for 2014 were from the redesigned income questions and the new imputation procedures. We quantify the effects of the combined survey improvements using differences-in-differences methods.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The improvements were not associated with changes in the estimate of burden in the full sample. Estimated prevalence increased by 2.6 percentage points among nonelderly adults with private insurance, decreased by 6.6 percentage points among nonelderly adults with public coverage, and decreased by 5.8 percentage points among elderly adults with Medicare and no private coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in the CPS changed the estimated prevalence of high medical financial burden among key subgroups. Researchers should use caution when tracking burden across the time-period in which these improvements were implemented.

Prevalence and Correlates of Medical Financial Hardship in the USA

BACKGROUND

High patient out-of-pocket (OOP) spending for medical care is associated with medical debt, distress about household finances, and forgoing medical care because of cost in the USA.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the national prevalence of medical financial hardship domains: (1) material conditions from increased OOP expenses (e.g., medical debt), (2) psychological responses (e.g., distress), and (3) coping behaviors (e.g., forgoing care); and factors associated with financial hardship.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We identified adults aged 18-64 years (N = 68,828) and ≥ 65 years (N = 24,614) from the 2015-2017 National Health Interview Survey. Multivariable analyses of nationally representative cross-sectional survey data were stratified by age group, 18-64 years and ≥ 65 years.

MAIN MEASURES

Prevalence of material, psychological, and behavioral hardship and hardship intensity.

KEY RESULTS

Approximately 137.1 million (95% CI 132.7-141.5) adults reported any medical financial hardship in the past year. Hardship is more common for material, psychological and behavioral domains in adults aged 18-64 years (28.9%, 46.9%, and 21.2%, respectively) than in adults aged ≥ 65 years (15.3%, 28.4%, and 12.7%, respectively; all p < .001). Lower educational attainment and more health conditions were strongly associated with hardship intensity in multivariable analyses in both age groups (p < .001). In the younger group, the uninsured were more likely to report multiple domains of hardship (52.8%), compared to those with some public (26.5%) or private insurance (23.2%) (p < .001). In the older group, individuals with Medicare only were more likely to report hardship in multiple domains (17.1%) compared to those with Medicare and public (12.1%) or Medicare and private coverage (10.1%) (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical financial hardship is common in the USA, especially in adults aged 18-64 years and those without health insurance coverage. With trends towards higher patient cost-sharing and increasing health care costs, risks of hardship may increase in the future.

Changes in screening colonoscopy following Medicare reimbursement and cost-sharing changes

OBJECTIVES

To compare existing algorithms for classifying screening vs diagnostic colonoscopies and to quantify the increase in screening colonoscopy rates when Medicare began reimbursement in 2001 and when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated cost-sharing.

DATA SOURCES

Twenty percent random sample of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims, 2000-2012.

STUDY DESIGN

Using recent administrative codes as tarnished gold standards, we examined the sensitivity and specificity of five published algorithms for classifying colonoscopies and calculated annual screening colonoscopy rates. We estimated the change in rates after Medicare began reimbursement and used difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the effects of eliminating cost-sharing by comparing states with and without a mandate to cover screening colonoscopy prior to the ACA.

FINDINGS

Model-based algorithms have higher sensitivity (0.53-0.99) than expert-based algorithms (0.35-0.39), but lower specificity (0.43-0.65 vs 0.79-0.88). All algorithms detected increases in screening from both Medicare's reimbursement change (range: 24-93/10 000) and the 2011 cost-sharing change (range: 1.1-34/10 000). Difference-in-difference estimates of the ACA's effect varied from 51 to 155 tests per 10 000 depending on the algorithm.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening colonoscopy rates increased after eliminating cost-sharing in 2011, but the increase's size varied depending on the algorithm used to classify the indication. Improvements are needed in Medicare coding for screening.

Health insurance design and conservative therapy for low back pain

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of health insurance benefit design features with choice of early conservative therapy for patients with new-onset low back pain (LBP).

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study of 117,448 commercially insured adults 18 years or older presenting with an outpatient diagnosis of new-onset LBP between 2008 and 2013 as recorded in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse.

METHODS

We identified patients who chose a primary care physician (PCP), physical therapist, or chiropractor as their entry-point provider. The main analyses were logistic regression models that estimated the likelihood of choosing a physical therapist versus a PCP and choosing a chiropractor versus a PCP. Key independent variables were health plan type, co-payment, deductible, and participation in a health reimbursement account (HRA) or health savings account (HSA). Models controlled for patient demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Selection of entry-point provider was moderately responsive to the incentives that patients faced. Those covered under plan types with greater restrictions on provider choice were less likely to choose conservative therapy compared with those covered under the least restrictive plan type. Results also indicated a general pattern of higher likelihood of treatment with physical therapy at lower levels of patient cost sharing. We did not observe consistent associations between participation in HRAs or HSAs and choice of conservative therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Modification of health insurance benefit designs offers an opportunity for creating greater value in treatment of new-onset LBP by encouraging patients to choose noninvasive conservative management that will result in long-term economic and social benefits.

Prescription Drug Spending and Medication Adherence Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that cost sharing adversely affects appropriate prescription drug use for chronic disorders. However, few studies have evaluated this effect in heart failure (HF), the most common cause of hospitalization in Medicare.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether spending on HF pharmacotherapy by Medicare Part D enrollees was associated with prescription refill adherence.

METHODS

This correlational study used pooled data from the 2010-2012 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS). The analysis sample consisted of community-dwelling MCBS participants with self-reported HF and continuous Part D coverage during the year of participation. 3 drug classes were analyzed independently: beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). 1,448 weighted participant-year records (derived from 964 individuals) met the inclusion criteria, of which 846 (58%) were included for beta-blockers, 633 (44%) for ACE inhibitors, and 229 (16%) for ARBs. Spending was measured by average out-of-pocket payment for the relevant prescription, standardized to a 30-day supply, as a percentage of average monthly income. Adherence was measured by the medication possession ratio (MPR): total days supplied for all but the last refill divided by number of days between the first and last fills of the year.

RESULTS

Accounting for sampling weights, the median (interquartile range) monthly income was $1,472 ($949-$2,466), and average percentage of monthly income spent on a 30-day medication supply was 0.22% for beta-blockers, 0.19% for ACE inhibitors, and 0.90% for ARBs. Mean MPR was 88.9% for beta-blockers, 88.5% for ACE inhibitors, and 90.4% for ARBs. Risk-adjusted models showed that percentage of income spent on a beta-blocker prescription was directly associated with odds of nonadherence (MPR < 80%), odds ratio = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.01-1.89, P = 0.045, and inversely associated with beta-blocker MPR, B = -4.17, SE = 1.23, P = 0.001. No such association was observed for ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Price sensitivity was evident for beta-blockers but not for antiangiotensin drugs, despite very low out-of-pocket costs and high adherence. This study is relevant to value-based pricing of HF management drugs in Part D plans.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Butler has served as a paid consultant or advisor on unrelated projects for Amgen, Array, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3, Innolife, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Stealth Peptide, SC Pharma, Vifor, and ZS Pharma. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to declare. An early version of this paper was presented as a poster at Sigma Theta Tau International's 28th Nursing Research Congress; July 27-31, 2017; Dublin, Ireland.

Evaluation of value-based insurance design for primary care

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of value-based insurance design (VBID), which removed patient cost sharing for primary care visits, on healthcare spending in a large, geographically diverse employer.

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences (DID) design, administrative claims-based study.

METHODS

Healthcare spending during the preintervention period (2008 and 2009) was compared with the postintervention period (2011 through 2014) to measure the impact of removing primary care cost sharing. The study population included Anthem commercially insured enrollees with continuous medical eligibility from 2008 to 2014 who were younger than 65 years. The VBID cohort included health plan enrollees from a national large employer that implemented the benefit change. The comparison cohort included other Anthem enrollees who did not have a similar benefit change and were propensity score-matched to the VBID cohort. Utilization of various types of healthcare services was also examined.

RESULTS

The VBID cohort experienced a $12.0 per member per month relative reduction in overall spending compared with the comparison cohort (P = .02). The trend was driven by reductions in expenditures for emergency department (ED) visits ($1.3 relative reduction; DID, -10.0%; P = .03) and other outpatient services ($7.6 relative reduction; DID, -5.8%; P = .02), which aligned with reduced utilization of ED visits (DID, -4.5%; P = .07) and other outpatient services (DID, -4.1%; P = .004). For physician office visits, the VBID cohort did not experience a significant relative increase compared with the comparison cohort (DID, 0.9%; P = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

The attempt to increase primary care access by reducing cost sharing did not produce a negative outcome in terms of total spending for healthcare.

The impact of copay assistance on patient out-of-pocket costs and treatment rates with ALK inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

The patient cost burden of oral anticancer medicines has been associated with prescription abandonment, delayed treatment initiation, and poorer health outcomes in the US. Since 2011, several small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with rearrangement of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of copay assistance on patient cost sharing and treatment patterns in patients prescribed oral ALK inhibitors (ALKi's).

METHODS

Patterns of claims approval/rejection and payment/reversal, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and treatment persistence were reported for patients identified in the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database from January 2013 to August 2017 linked to a medical claims database. The primary study cohorts were patients with copay assistance, including manufacturer's copay cards, other discount cards, or free-trial vouchers, on the index ALKi claim, and patients without copay assistance at any time during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

In total, 3,143 patients were included in analyses related to claim patterns, and 1,685 patients were included in analyses related to treatment persistence. Copay assistance decreased the OOP cost for the first approved ALKi by $1,930, on average. Patients with copay assistance picked up ALKi prescriptions from the pharmacy sooner than patients without copay assistance (2.6 days vs 25.7 days). In adjusted analyses, patients with copay assistance had 88.2% lower risk of abandoning their first approved prescription and 24.3% lower risk of discontinuing treatment with the first observed ALKi (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Copay assistance reduced the patient cost burden for ALKi's and was associated with patients picking up their ALKi prescriptions, beginning ALKi treatment sooner, and remaining on treatment.

Reference pricing: The case of screening colonoscopies

We study the introduction of reference pricing to the California Public Employees' Retirement System. Reference pricing changes the relative price of using a hospital versus an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) for patients receiving a colonoscopy, leading to as good as random variation in patients' use of ASCs. We find a 10 percentage point increase in the share of patients using an ASC, leading to a $2300 to $1700 reduction in prices paid for patients who switch to ASCs. Our results suggest that the use of ASCs has a causal effect on prices paid and has no negative effect on patient health outcomes.

User fee exemption and maternal health care utilisation at mission health facilities in Malawi: An application of disequilibrium theory of demand and supply

The literature on health care utilisation has focussed on the interaction of supply and demand factors in determining utilisation. At the aggregate level, studies have modelled the simultaneity of demand and supply, and different methods have been used. This study proposes an alternative framework for modelling utilisation, which yet separates demand and supply factors, the disequilibrium theory of demand and supply. This theory is useful in modelling data that reflect that not all health care demand is met by health care providers and not all health care supply is taken by consumers. Such disequilibrium arises due to rigid prices and quantity rationing. We use the theory to model maternal health care utilisation and user fee exemption at mission health care facilities in Malawi. The study uses switching regression methods and data from the Malawi Health Management Information System. Results show that user fee exemption is associated with increased utilisation of maternal health care. Demand and supply regime classification shows that many of the health facilities met much of the demand, whereas the rest only provided as much maternal care as their maximum capacity. In the latter case, intended maternal health care utilisation targets may not have been met.

Impact of Cost-Sharing Increases on Continuity of Specialty Drug Use: A Quasi-Experimental Study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of cost-sharing increases on continuity of specialty drug use in Medicare beneficiaries with multiple sclerosis (MS) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Five percent Medicare claims data (2007-2010).

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental study examining changes in specialty drug use among a group of Medicare Part D beneficiaries without low-income subsidies (non-LIS) as they transitioned from a 5 percent cost-sharing preperiod to a ≥25 percent cost-sharing postperiod, as compared to changes among a disease-matched contemporaneous control group of patients eligible for full low-income subsidies (LIS), who faced minor cost sharing (≤$6.30 copayment) in both the pre- and postperiods.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Key variables were extracted from Medicare data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Relative to the LIS group, the non-LIS group had a greater increase in incidence of 30-day continuous gaps in any Part D treatment from the lower cost-sharing period to the higher cost-sharing period (MS, absolute increase = 10.1 percent, OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.17; RA, absolute increase = 21.9 percent, OR = 2.75, 95% CI 2.15-3.51). The increase in Part D treatment gaps was not offset by increased Part B specialty drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-sharing increases due to specialty tier-level cost sharing were associated with interruptions in MS and RA specialty drug treatments.

Do Larger Health Insurance Subsidies Benefit Patients or Producers? Evidence from Medicare Advantage

A central question in the debate over privatized Medicare is whether increased government payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans generate lower premiums for consumers or higher profits for producers. Using difference‑in‑differences variation brought about by a sharp legislative change, we find that MA insurers pass through 45 percent of increased payments in lower premiums and an additional 9 percent in more generous benefits. We show that advantageous selection into MA cannot explain this incomplete pass‑through. Instead, our evidence suggests that market power is important, with premium pass‑through rates of 13 percent in the least competitive markets and 74 percent in the most competitive.

Patient cost-sharing, socioeconomic status, and children's health care utilization

This paper estimates the effect of cost-sharing on the demand for children's and adolescents' use of medical care. We use a large population-wide registry dataset including detailed information on contacts with the health care system as well as family income. Two different estimation strategies are used: regression discontinuity design exploiting age thresholds above which fees are charged, and difference-in-differences models exploiting policy changes. We also estimate combined regression discontinuity difference-in-differences models that take into account discontinuities around age thresholds caused by factors other than cost-sharing. We find that when care is free of charge, individuals increase their number of doctor visits by 5-10%. Effects are similar in middle childhood and adolescence, and are driven by those from low-income families. The differences across income groups cannot be explained by other factors that correlate with income, such as maternal education.

The Role of Medicare's Inpatient Cost-Sharing in Medicaid Entry

OBJECTIVE

To isolate the effect of greater inpatient cost-sharing on Medicaid entry among Medicare beneficiaries.

DATA SOURCES

Medicare administrative data (years 2007-2010) were linked to nursing home assessments and area-level socioeconomic indicators.

STUDY DESIGN

Medicare beneficiaries who are readmitted to a hospital must pay an additional deductible ($1,100 in 2010) if their readmission occurs more than 59 days following discharge. In a regression discontinuity analysis, we take advantage of this Medicare benefit feature to test whether beneficiaries with greater cost-sharing have higher rates of Medicaid enrollment.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

We identified 221,248 Medicare beneficiaries with an initial hospital stay and a readmission 53-59 days later (no deductible) or 60-66 days later (charged a deductible).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Among beneficiaries in low-socioeconomic areas with two hospitalizations, those readmitted 60-66 days after discharge were 21 percent more likely to join Medicaid compared with those readmitted 53-59 days following their initial hospitalization (absolute difference in adjusted risk of Medicaid entry: 3.7 percent vs. 3.1 percent, p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing Medicare cost-sharing requirements may promote Medicaid enrollment among low-income beneficiaries. Potential savings from an increased cost-sharing in the Medicare program may be offset by increased Medicaid participation.

Leveraging benefit design for better diabetes self-management and A1C control

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relationship between cost sharing for blood glucose testing strips and glycemic control rates.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational study using medical and pharmacy claims data integrated with laboratory glycated hemoglobin (A1C) values for patients using insulin and testing strips. A new user study design was utilized to identify individuals from 14 commercial US health plans who filled testing strips with assumed intention to monitor blood glucose.

METHODS

Patients were divided into low (<20% of annual testing strip cost; n = 3575) and high (≥20%; n = 3580) cost-sharing categories. We compared the likelihood of patients in low and high cost-sharing categories achieving glycemic control (A1C <8.0%) through modified Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Patients with low cost sharing for testing strips had higher rates of control than those with high cost sharing (58.1% vs 50.3%; P <.001). Low cost sharing was associated with greater probability of glycemic control (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20; P <.0001). Glycemic control was more likely for patients in areas with median household income greater than $60,000 versus less than $40,000 (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25; P <.01) and greater than $80,000 versus less than $40,000 (aRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.32; P <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a statistically significant correlation between cost sharing for testing strips and better A1C control for patients using insulin medication. Lower cost sharing for testing strips can remove a barrier to diabetes self-management and may lead to improved glycemic control at the population level. Future efforts should study the potential benefits of reducing diabetic complications and associated cost savings.

Association of high cost sharing and targeted therapy initiation among elderly Medicare patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

High out-of-pocket costs may limit access to oral therapies covered by patients' prescription drug benefits. We explored financial barriers to treatment initiation in patients newly diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) by comparing Medicare Part D patients with low out-of-pocket costs due to receipt of full low-income subsidies (LIS beneficiaries) to their counterparts who were responsible for more than 25% cost sharing during Medicare's initial coverage phase (non-LIS beneficiaries). We used 2011-2013 100% Medicare claims for non-LIS and LIS beneficiaries newly diagnosed with metastases in the liver, lung, or bone to examine targeted therapy treatment initiation rates and time to initiation for (1) oral medications (sorafenib, sunitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, or axitinib) covered under Medicare's prescription drug benefit (Part D); (2) injected or infused medications (temsirolimus or bevacizumab) covered by Medicare's medical benefit (Part B); and (3) any (Part D or Part B) targeted therapy. The final sample included 1721 patients. On average, non-LIS patients were responsible for out-of-pocket costs of ≥$2,800 for their initial oral prescription, as compared to ≤$6.60 for LIS patients. Compared to LIS patients, a lower percentage of non-LIS patients initiated oral therapies (risk-adjusted rates, 20.7% vs. 33.9%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, P < 0.001) and any targeted therapies (26.7% vs. 40.4%, OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.71, P < 0.001). Non-LIS patients were also slower to access therapy. High cost sharing was associated with reduced and/or delayed access to targeted therapies under Medicare Part D, suggesting that financial barriers play a role in treatment decisions.

Following the ACA Repeal-and-Replace Effort, Where Does the U.S. Stand on Insurance Coverage? Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey, March--June 2017

ISSUE

After Congress's failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, some policy leaders are calling for bipartisan approaches to address weaknesses in the law’s coverage expansions. To do this, policymakers will need data about trends in insurance coverage, reasons why people remain uninsured, and consumer perceptions of affordability.

GOAL

To examine U.S. trends in insurance coverage and the demographics of the remaining uninsured population, as well as affordability and satisfaction among adults with marketplace and Medicaid coverage.

METHODS

Analysis of the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey, March–June 2017

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The uninsured rate among 19-to-64-year-old adults was 14 percent in 2017, or an estimated 27 million people, statistically unchanged from one year earlier. Uninsured rates ticked up significantly in three subgroups: 35-to-49-year-olds, adults with incomes of 400 percent of poverty or more (about $48,000 for an individual), and adults living in states that had not expanded Medicaid. Half of uninsured adults, or an estimated 13 million, are likely eligible for marketplace subsidies or the Medicaid expansion in their state. Four of 10 uninsured adults are unaware of the marketplaces. Adults in marketplace plans with incomes below 250 percent of poverty are much more likely to view their premiums as easy to afford compared with people with higher incomes. Policies to improve coverage include a federal commitment to supporting the marketplaces and the 2018 open enrollment period, expansion of Medicaid in 19 remaining states, and enhanced subsidies for people with incomes of 250 percent of poverty or more.

Health care demand elasticities by type of service

We estimate within-year price elasticities of demand for detailed health care services using an instrumental variable strategy, in which individual monthly cost shares are instrumented by employer-year-plan-month average cost shares. A specification using backward myopic prices gives more plausible and stable results than using forward myopic prices. Using 171 million person-months spanning 73 employers from 2008 to 2014, we estimate that the overall demand elasticity by backward myopic consumers is -0.44, with higher elasticities of demand for pharmaceuticals (-0.44), specialists visits (-0.32), MRIs (-0.29) and mental health/substance abuse (-0.26), and lower elasticities for prevention visits (-0.02) and emergency rooms (-0.04). Demand response is lower for children, in larger firms, among hourly waged employees, and for sicker people. Overall the method appears promising for estimating elasticities for highly disaggregated services although the approach does not work well on services that are very expensive or persistent.

Impact of consumer copayments for subsidised medicines on health services use and outcomes: a protocol using linked administrative data from Western Australia

INTRODUCTION

Across the world, health systems are adopting approaches to manage rising healthcare costs. One common strategy is a medication copayments scheme where consumers make a contribution (copayment) towards the cost of their dispensed medicines, with remaining costs subsidised by the health insurance service, which in Australia is the Federal Government.In Australia, copayments have tended to increase in proportion to inflation, but in January 2005, the copayment increased substantially more than inflation. Results from aggregated dispensing data showed that this increase led to a significant decrease in the use of several medicines. The aim of this study is to determine the demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals ceasing or reducing statin medication use following the January 2005 Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) copayment increase and the effects on their health outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This whole-of-population study comprises a series of retrospective, observational investigations using linked administrative health data on a cohort of West Australians (WA) who had at least one statin dispensed between 1 May 2002 and 30 June 2010. Individual-level data on the use of pharmaceuticals, general practitioner (GP) visits, hospitalisations and death are used.This study will identify patients who were stable users of statin medication in 2004 with follow-up commencing from 2005 onwards. Subgroups determined by change in adherence levels of statin medication from 2004 to 2005 will be classified as continuation, reduction or cessation of statin therapy and explored for differences in health outcomes and health service utilisation after the 2005 copayment change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approvals have been obtained from the Western Australian Department of Health (#2007/33), University of Western Australia (RA/4/1/1775) and University of Notre Dame (0 14 167F). Outputs from the findings will be published in peer reviewed journals designed for a policy audience and presented at state, national and international conferences.

The impact of change from copayment to coinsurance on medical care usage and expenditure in outpatient setting in older Koreans

Patient cost-sharing change was implemented on August 1, 2007, for outpatient care in the clinic setting in Korea from copayment to coinsurance. This study aims to estimate the effect of the policy change on medical care usage and expenditure in older Koreans. By using national health insurance claims data from the Health Insurance Reimbursement Assessment Service, this study analyzed the entire 137 million claims for a total of approximately 4.1 million patients aged 60 to 69 years who had been diagnosed and/or treated for outpatient care in clinics from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. Medical care usage was defined as the proportion of all beneficiaries in each group who visited clinics and the mean number of visit days per beneficiary. Medical care expenditure per visit day was expressed as total costs, reimbursed amount, and patient's out-of-pocket payment. Data on January through June of 2008 were analyzed as compared with the same months of 2007. Raw difference-in-difference and multiple regression analyses were performed. The interaction coefficients, which measured the impact of cost-sharing change, was -0.078 in model 1 and -0.039 in model 2 (P < .0001). In conclusion, a cost-sharing change from copayment to coinsurance reduced medical care usage and expenditure.

Barrier to Access or Cost Share? Coinsurance and Dental-Care Utilization in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance, are elements of health-care systems to make prices salient for the insured. Individuals may respond differently to cost sharing, according to the type of care they seek; dental care, as a combination of both acute and elective care, is an ideal setting to study the effects of cost-sharing mechanisms on utilization.

OBJECTIVE

To test how coinsurance affects dental-care utilization in a middle-income country context.

METHODS

This study uses policy variations in the Colombian health-care system to analyze changes in dental-care utilization due to different levels of coinsurance. We used matching procedures to balance observed differences in pre-treatment variables between those who face coinsurance (non-policy holders, or beneficiaries) and those who don't (policyholders). We use zero-inflated negative binomial models for the count of visits and two-part models for total expenditures, and test for unobservable confounders with random-effect models and instrumental variables.

RESULTS

Individuals who face coinsurance are less likely to have any dental-care utilization, at a relatively small scale. Facing coinsurance does not correlate with changes in total expenditures. Falsification tests with dental-care visits exempt from coinsurance show no statistically distinguishable changes in utilization. Random-effect models and instrumental variable models show results similar to the main specification.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-sharing policies in Colombia seem to be well designed because they don't represent an important barrier to dental-care access.

Higher cost sharing for visiting general hospitals and the changing trend in the first-visited healthcare organization among newly diagnosed hypertension patients

Unnecessary use of high-quality resources in general hospitals hinders treatment of patients with urgent and complicated conditions. Thus, the Korean Government has sought to reduce general hospital visiting of patients with 52 mild diseases, including hypertension. The higher cost sharing for medical expenses and medications from general hospitals were enacted in 2009 and 2011, respectively.We determined whether these regulations were effective through evaluating changing trends in first-visited healthcare organizations and defined the first visiting healthcare organization level (primary clinics, hospital, and general hospital) as an outcome measure.Data of 32,830 mild hypertension patients from 2004 to 2013 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service National Sample Cohort. This was a retrospective study involving a large national cohort with patient samples (representing 2% of the total Korean population) stratified on the basis of sociodemographic information.Mutinomial logistic regression were performed for the first visiting to different health organizations, compared to the first visiting to primary clinics.Patients in 2012 and 2013 had significantly lower odds ("2012": 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.81/"2013": 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81) of first visiting general hospitals compared with those in 2008, although decreased tendencies (albeit nonsignificant) were already evident in 2010 and 2011.Thus, government health policies for cost-containment seem effective in decreasing first visiting of general hospitals among patients with mild essential hypertension. These policies have since extended to Medical Aid beneficiaries; thus, it is needed to continue monitor their results carefully.

How the ACA's Health Insurance Expansions Have Affected Out-of-Pocket Cost-Sharing and Spending on Premiums

One important benefit gained by the millions of Americans with health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is protection from high out-of-pocket health spending. While Medicaid unambiguously reduces out-of-pocket premium and medical costs for low-income people, it is less certain that marketplace coverage and other types of insurance purchased to comply with the law's individual mandate also protect from high health spending. Goal: To compare out-of-pocket spending in 2014 to spending in 2013; assess how this spending changed in states where many people enrolled in the marketplaces relative to states where few people enrolled; and project the decline in the percentage of people paying high amounts out-of-pocket. Methods: Linear regression models were used to estimate whether people under age 65 spent above certain thresholds. Key findings and conclusions: The probability of incurring high out-of-pocket costs and premium expenses declined as marketplace enrollment increased. The percentage reductions were greatest among those with incomes between 250 percent and 399 percent of poverty, those who were eligible for premium subsidies, and those who previously were uninsured or had very limited nongroup coverage. These effects appear largely attributable to marketplace enrollment rather than to other ACA provisions or to economic trends.

Americans' Experiences with ACA Marketplace Coverage: Affordability and Provider Network Satisfaction: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey, February--April 2016

For people with low and moderate incomes, the Affordable Care Act's tax credits have made premium costs roughly comparable to those paid by people with job-based health insurance. For those with higher incomes, the tax credits phase out, meaning that adults in marketplace plans on average have higher premium costs than those in employer plans. The law's cost-sharing reductions are reducing deductibles. Lower-income adults in marketplace plans were less likely than higher-income adults to report having deductibles of $1,000 or more. Majorities of new marketplace enrollees and those who have changed plans since they initially obtained marketplace coverage are satisfied with the doctors participating in their plans. Overall, the majority of marketplace enrollees expressed confidence in their ability to afford care if they were to become seriously ill. This issue brief explores these and other findings from the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey, February--April 2016.

Behavioral Health Services in the Changing Landscape of Private Health Plans

OBJECTIVE

Health plans play a key role in facilitating improvements in population health and may engage in activities that have an impact on access, cost, and quality of behavioral health care. Although behavioral health care is becoming more integrated with general medical care, its delivery system has unique aspects. The study examined how health plans deliver and manage behavioral health care in the context of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). This is a critical time to examine how health plans manage behavioral health care.

METHODS

A nationally representative survey of private health plans (weighted N=8,431 products; 89% response rate) was conducted in 2010 during the first year of MHPAEA, when plans were subject to the law but before final regulations, and just before the ACA went into effect. The survey addressed behavioral health coverage, cost-sharing, contracting arrangements, medical home innovations, support for technology, and financial incentives to improve behavioral health care.

RESULTS

Coverage for inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services was stable between 2003 and 2010. In 2010, health plans were more likely than in 2003 to manage behavioral health care through internal arrangements and to contract for other services. Medical home initiatives were common and almost always included behavioral health, but financial incentives did not. Some plans facilitated providers' use of technology to improve care delivery, but this was not the norm.

CONCLUSIONS

Health plans are key to mainstreaming and supporting delivery of high-quality behavioral health services. Since 2003, plans have made changes to support delivery of behavioral health services in the context of a rapidly changing environment.

How Much Financial Protection Do Marketplace Plans Provide in States Not Expanding Medicaid?

The Affordable Care Act's premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions have helped to reduce out-of-pocket costs for low-income people enrolled in marketplace plans. This financial protection has been particularly important for people with incomes above 100 percent of poverty who live in states that have not expanded Medicaid. However, a key question for policymakers is how this protection compares to Medicaid. This brief analyzes a sample of silver plans offered in the largest markets in 18 states that use the federal website for marketplace enrollment and have not expanded Medicaid eligibility. It finds that marketplace enrollees at this income level in most plans analyzed are at risk of incurring premium and out-of-pocket costs that are higher than what they would pay under Medicaid. For people with significant health needs, costs are estimated to be much higher in marketplace plans than what they would be under Medicaid.

Changes in Consumer Cost-Sharing for Health Plans Sold in the ACA's Insurance Marketplaces, 2015 to 2016

This brief examines changes in consumer health plan cost-sharing--deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits--for coverage offered in the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces between 2015 and 2016. Three of seven measures studied rose moderately in 2016, an increase attributable in part to a shift in the mix of plans offered in the marketplaces, from plans with higher actuarial value (platinum and gold plans) to those that have less generous coverage (bronze and silver plans). Nearly 60 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans receive cost-sharing reductions as part of income-based assistance. For enrollees without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits remain considerably higher under bronze and silver plans than under employer-based plans; cost-sharing is similar in gold plans and employer plans. Marketplace plans are more likely than employer-based plans to impose a deductible for prescription drugs but no less likely to do so for primary care visits.

Sofosbuvir initial therapy abandonment and manufacturer coupons in a commercially insured population

OBJECTIVES

To describe rates of sofosbuvir initial medication adherence as a function of the insurer-required member cost (ie, out-of-pocket cost) and to determine how manufacturer coupons affect insurer-required member cost.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional analysis.

METHODS

Administrative pharmacy claims data from 13 million commercially insured members were used to identify sofosbuvir new starts between January 2014 and September 2014. Members were categorized as either sofosbuvir initial adherence or as abandoning therapy. A multivariate logistic regression model adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, severity of illness, and total drug costs (health insurer plus member amount) for non-sofosbuvir pharmacy claims in 2014 was used to evaluate the association between insurer-required member cost and initial medication adherence. In a sub-analysis, sofosbuvir index claims with coupon data available were analyzed to determine how coupon use impacted insurer-required member cost.

RESULTS

A total of 67.3% of members had a pre-coupon member cost of < $250 for their index sofosbuvir claim. Just 201 (5.0%) members were exposed to a member cost of more than $10,000. The logistic regression model demonstrated an association between member cost and abandonment starting at $2500 to < $5000 (odds ratio: 1.9; 95% CI, 1.01-3.43; P = .0393). The average member sofosbuvir index claim cost was $1349 before coupon was applied, and $28 after. Overall, coupons offset the member amounts paid by 98%: $771,593 of the $787,860 member cost requested by the insurer.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that a 30-day supply sofosbuvir member cost of > $2500 was associated with increased initial therapy abandonment, and that manufacturer coupons substantially reduced sofosbuvir insurer-required member cost. Insurers and policy makers should consider the impact of member cost on medication adherence and the impact coupons have on the actual member cost.

Accessing the cure: helping patients with hepatitis C overcome barriers to care

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an illustrative example of the dilemma faced by patients in the American healthcare landscape: HCV is a chronic, progressive disease for which a cure exists, but at such high prices that cost-sharing innovations create significant barriers to care, treatment, and cure. Previous HCV treatments were ineffective and had a wide range of severe side effects, so much so, that both patients and their providers chose to wait for newer and more effective options. Yet, once these options became available, cost-sharing mechanisms, such as plan premiums, deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance, created barriers to treatment, producing a large pool of patients infected with HCV who are willing but unable to access a cure. In response, advocacy organizations like the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable and Project Inform have developed innovative strategies to improve access to HCV care and treatment.

The MS Center of Saint Louis: a practice perspective of the impacts of high cost sharing

As treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) has become increasingly expensive, patients have had to shoulder a greater cost-sharing burden. This case study follows a fictitious patient as she encounters the common cost-related barriers to treatment that have been observed by providers at the MS Center of Saint Louis. Medications, tests to monitor patient safety on medications, physical therapy, occupational therapy, medical equipment, mental health counseling, transportation, and modifications to house or vehicles are all common needs of MS patients that increase their cost burden. The MS Center of Saint Louis provides care management and education to help patients budget for expected expenses and navigate resources for assistance. However, this will ultimately be an unsustainable solution without substantial policy change.

Practical solutions when facing cost sharing: the American Cancer Society's Health Insurance Assistance Service

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has been a leading voice for healthcare reform and an informed advocate for effective health insurance reforms. Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the ACS has observed a shift in inquiries to its Health Insurance Assistance Service (HIAS) from individuals seeking coverage, to a growing problem of individuals presenting issues from being underinsured. Underinsured patients with cancer face serious financial challenges due to large co-pays and coinsurance costs. HIAS was created to help these patients identify potential options for insurance coverage while tracking patient trends. The types of calls received by HIAS have been captured as part of an internal database that allows for the analysis of trends and emerging issues. By evaluating several case studies that illustrate common issues faced by underinsured individuals, we identified solutions ranging from exploring financial assistance programs, such as co-pay relief and providing appeal information, to searching for more adequate or affordable insurance options. Additionally, the ACS has worked to find strong partnerships with other nonprofit organizations to aid in cost relief. Although the ACA has made plans available to many patients and their families, the maximum for an individual's in-network out-of-pocket costs are still too high for many individuals. New approaches are needed to improve the cost protection of health plans. By documenting access problems faced by patients with cancer, the ACS is better positioned to tell policy makers about the concerns of real patients and work toward policy solutions.

High cost sharing and specialty drug initiation under Medicare Part D: a case study in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia

OBJECTIVES

Specialty drugs often offer medical advances but are frequently subject to high cost sharing. This is particularly true with Medicare Part D, where after meeting a deductible, patients without low-income subsidies (non-LIS) typically face 25% to 33% coinsurance (initial coverage phase with "specialty tier" cost sharing), followed by ~50% coinsurance (coverage gap phase), and then 5% coinsurance (catastrophic phase). Yet, no studies have examined the impact of such high cost sharing on specialty drug initiation under Part D. Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), making it an apt case study.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective claims-based analysis utilizing 2011 to 2013 100% Medicare claims.

METHODS

TKI initiation rates and time to initiation were compared between fee-for-service non-LIS Part D patients newly diagnosed with CML and their LIS counterparts who faced nominal cost sharing of ≤ $5.

RESULTS

The first 30-day TKI fill "straddled" benefit phases, for a mean out-of-pocket cost of $2600 or more for non-LIS patients. Non-LIS patients were less likely than LIS patients to have a TKI claim within 6 months of diagnosis (45.3% vs 66.9%; P < .001) and those initiating a TKI took twice as long to fill it (mean = 50.9 vs 23.7 days; P < .001). Cox regressions controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and plan characteristics confirmed descriptive findings (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

High cost sharing was associated with reduced and/or delayed initiation of TKIs. We discuss policy strategies to reduce current financial barriers that adversely impact access to critical therapies under Medicare Part D.

The redesign of consumer cost sharing for specialty drugs at the California Health Insurance Exchange

This paper describes the redesign of health benefits at Covered California-the nation's largest health insurance exchange, which covers 1.3 million individuals, and its benefit designs extending to hundreds of thousands more enrollees through insurance products sold outside the exchange-with respect to specialty drugs for the 2016 enrollment year. The catalyst for benefit redesign came from advocacy organizations representing patients suffering from HIV, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, hepatitis C, and other chronic conditions. The first component of the benefit redesign creates a separate deductible for pharmaceutical expenditures, with a commensurate reduction in the deductible for other (medical) expenditures. The second component requires health plans to assign at least 1 specialty drug for each therapeutic class to a nonspecialty tier, offering patients a treatment option for which they are not exposed to coinsurance. The third component imposes a monthly payment limit of $250 for each specialty drug prescription, thereby buffering patients using these drugs against the $6250 individual, or $13,500 family, annual medical payment limit. The pharmacy deductible and monthly out-of-pocket payment limit are substantially lower for low-income enrollees in the subsidized silver-tier products. The Covered California redesign indicates that patients can be shielded from the most onerous cost-sharing burdens while keeping premiums affordable for the entire enrolled population; however, sustainable access to care requires reductions in the underlying cost of new clinical technologies.

Systematic review of benefit designs with differential cost sharing for prescription drugs

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of health insurance benefit designs that introduced or increased the price difference between prescription drugs representing potential clinical substitutes.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of peer-reviewed articles.

METHODS

Using English-language articles listed in PubMed between 1980 and 2012, we identified articles meeting our inclusion criteria and minimum methodological standards. We compared findings regarding the immediate patient response, total spending, and health outcomes after implementing the price change.

RESULTS

Among the 31 articles identified, the mechanisms varied for creating the price differential between prescription drug substitutes, though they most frequently involved tiered formularies (19) or reference pricing (10). While nearly all studies (29 of 31) reported on patient responses to price changes, only 5 articles comprehensively assessed patient price responses, total spending, and health outcomes. Several studies found that some patients switched to cheaper drugs, but out-of-pocket spending increased on average, suggesting that other patients continued using the more expensive drug (ie, cost shifting to patients). Few studies examined the degree of heterogeneity in behavior responses, especially between patient cohorts for whom the substitute drugs had varying value. Some studies observed long-term effects, but most had limited post intervention observation periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Differential cost-sharing designs influence drug use behavior, but there is limited evidence on how these designs affect the overall value of received care. The existing literature provides limited guidance for policy makers or organizational leaders to design benefits. We offer suggestions for future studies to inform policy and practice.

Cost-sharing, physician utilization, and adverse selection among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic health conditions

Pooled data from the 2007, 2009, and 2011/2012 California Health Interview Surveys were used to compare the number of self-reported annual physician visits among 36,808 Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 in insurance groups with differential cost-sharing. Adjusted for adverse selection and a set of health covariates, Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) only beneficiaries had similar physician utilization compared with HMO enrollees but fewer visits compared with those with supplemental (1.04, p = .001) and Medicaid (1.55, p = .003) coverage. FFS only beneficiaries in very good or excellent health had fewer visits compared with those of similar health status with supplemental (1.30, p = .001) or Medicaid coverage (2.15, p = .002). For subpopulations with several chronic conditions, FFS only beneficiaries also had fewer visits compared with beneficiaries with supplemental or Medicaid coverage. Observed differences in utilization may reflect efficient and necessary physician utilization among those with chronic health needs.

Older people's perceptions of prescription medicine costs and related costs: a pilot study in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Older people tend to take more medicines and prescription medicine costs may influence medicine adherence.

AIM

The aim of this pilot study was to identify older people's perceptions of prescription medicine costs and related costs in four major cities across New Zealand.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to people aged 65 years and older visiting pharmacies in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin to identify their perceptions of costs relating to prescription medicines and related pharmacy and general practice services. Data were compared between cities and examined for associations between participants' views on costs and age, sex, income, ethnicity, number of medicines, and monthly cost.

RESULTS

Participants (N=107) received a median of five prescription medicines (range 1-15), at a median cost of NZ$8.00 (range 0-55.30). Median part-charges for medicines only partly funded by the government were NZ$6.25 (range 0.60-100.00), and GP consultations ranged from NZ$0-60.00. Of the participants, 89 (83.2%) thought medicine costs and 63 (58.9%) thought GP consultation costs were reasonable. Participants with median monthly medicine costs of NZ$8.33-87.00 more commonly perceived medicines as expensive or very expensive (p=0.001, Fisher's exact test).

DISCUSSION

Older people in this study mostly viewed their prescription medicines and related costs as reasonable; however, 17% and 41%, respectively, found medicines costs and GP consultation costs expensive. Larger, in-depth studies across New Zealand are needed to determine the sections of the population that find these costs expensive, and to explore how this might affect medicine adherence.