Search

Background: Twenty-five states have implemented insulin out-of-pocket (OOP) cost caps, but their effectiveness is uncertain., Objective: To examine the effect of state insulin OOP caps on insulin use and OOP costs among commercially insured persons with diabetes., Design: Pre-post study with control group., Setting: Eight states implementing insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, $50, or $100 in January 2021, and 17 control states., Participants: Commercially insured persons with diabetes and insulin users younger than 65 years. Subgroups of particular interest included members from states with insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, enrollees with health savings accounts (HSAs) that require high insulin OOP payments, and lower-income members., Measurements: Mean monthly 30-day insulin fills and OOP costs., Results: State insulin caps were not associated with changes in insulin use in the overall population (relative change in fills per month, 1.8% [95% CI, -3.2% to 6.9%]). Insulin users in intervention states saw a 17.4% (CI, -23.9% to -10.9%) relative reduction in insulin OOP costs, largely driven by reductions among HSA enrollees; there was no difference in OOP costs among nonaccount plan members. More generous ($25 to $30) state insulin OOP caps were associated with insulin OOP cost reductions of 40.0% (CI, -62.5% to -17.6%), again primarily driven by a larger reduction in the subgroup with HSA plans., Limitations: Single national insurer; 9-month follow-up., Conclusion: Insulin OOP caps were associated with reduced insulin OOP costs but no overall increases in insulin use. A proposed national insulin cap of $35 for commercially insured persons might lead to meaningful insulin OOP savings but have a limited effect on insulin use., Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1965.

Background: Little is known about the long-term effects of high-deductible insurance on care for chronic medical conditions., Objective: To determine whether a transition from low-deductible to high-deductible insurance is associated with delayed medical care for macrovascular complications of diabetes., Design: Observational longitudinal comparison of matched groups., Setting: A large national health insurer during 2003 to 2012., Participants: The intervention group comprised 33 957 persons with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) insurance plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans. The control group included 294 942 persons with diabetes who were enrolled in low-deductible plans contemporaneously with matched intervention group members., Intervention: Employer-mandated transition to a high-deductible plan., Measurements: The number of months it took for persons in each study group to seek care for their first major macrovascular symptom, have their first major diagnostic test for macrovascular disease, and have their first major procedure-based treatment was determined. Between-group differences in time to reach a midpoint event rate were then calculated., Results: No baseline differences were found between groups. During follow-up, the delay for the high-deductible group was 1.5 months (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 months) for seeking care for the first major symptom, 1.9 months (CI, 1.4 to 2.3 months) for the first diagnostic test, and 3.1 months (CI, 0.5 to 5.8 months) for the first procedure-based treatment., Limitation: Health outcomes were not examined., Conclusion: Among persons with diabetes, mandated enrollment in a high-deductible insurance plan was associated with delays in seeking care for the first major symptoms of macrovascular disease, the first diagnostic test, and the first procedure-based treatment., Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Background: Nonfatal opioid overdose is an opportunity to identify and treat substance use disorders, but treatment patterns after the overdose are unknown., Objective: To determine prescribed opioid dosage after an opioid overdose and its association with repeated overdose., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: A large U.S. health insurer., Participants: 2848 commercially insured patients aged 18 to 64 years who had a nonfatal opioid overdose during long-term opioid therapy for noncancer pain between May 2000 and December 2012., Measurements: Nonfatal opioid overdose was identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, codes from emergency department or inpatient claims. The primary outcome was daily morphine-equivalent dosage (MED) of opioids dispensed from 60 days before to up to 730 days after the index overdose. We categorized dosages as large (≥100 mg MED), moderate (50 to <100 mg MED), low (<50 mg MED), or none (0 mg MED). Secondary outcomes included time to repeated overdose stratified by daily dosage as a time-varying covariate., Results: Over a median follow-up of 299 days, opioids were dispensed to 91% of patients after an overdose. Seven percent of patients (n = 212) had a repeated opioid overdose. At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of repeated overdose was 17% (95% CI, 14% to 20%) for patients receiving high dosages of opioids after the index overdose, 15% (CI, 10% to 21%) for those receiving moderate dosages, 9% (CI, 6% to 14%) for those receiving low dosages, and 8% (CI, 6% to 11%) for those receiving no opioids., Limitation: The cohort was limited to commercially insured adults., Conclusion: Almost all patients continue to receive prescription opioids after an overdose. Opioid discontinuation after overdose is associated with lower risk for repeated overdose., Primary Funding Source: Health Resources and Services Administration.

Background: Health plans with high deductibles could lead patients to avoid preventive care, such as cancer screening., Objective: To determine the effect of membership in a high-deductible health plan on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening., Design: Before-after comparison between groups., Setting: A high-deductible health plan and an HMO in Massachusetts. The high-deductible health plan fully covered mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) but not colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or double-contrast barium enema (DCBE)., Participants: 3169 high-deductible health plan members and 27,022 HMO members (who served as controls)., Measurements: Change in the proportions of patients undergoing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening., Results: Cancer screening in the high-deductible health plan group was unchanged from baseline to follow-up (adjusted ratios of change, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.19] for breast cancer, 1.04 [CI, 0.92 to 1.17] for cervical cancer, and 1.02 [CI, 0.89 to 1.16] for colorectal cancer). High-deductible health plan members had colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE less often (ratio of change, 0.73 [CI, 0.56 to 0.95]) and FOBT more often (ratio of change, 1.16 [CI, 1.01 to 1.33]) than HMO members., Limitations: Population screening frequency was probably underestimated because the study could not assess screening before the baseline year. The study may have included people ineligible for screening because of previous colectomy, mastectomy, or hysterectomy. The findings are limited to a population with relatively high socioeconomic status, which is typical of employed, commercially insured populations., Conclusion: Members of a high-deductible health plan did not seem to change their use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening when tests were fully covered. However, members may have substituted a fully covered screening test (FOBT) for tests subject to the deductible (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE).