Search

To examine how health care utilization and spending vary for low-income employees compared with high-income employees enrolled in an employer-sponsored high-deductible health plan (HDHP).We use commercial medical claims data and administrative human resource data from a large employer between 2014 and 2018. We link the administrative data, which include details on salary and other benefit choices, to each employee in each year with medical claims. Our variables of interest include medical spending and utilization outcomes grouped into different care settings.Using multivariate regressions, we estimate the association between salary buckets and health care utilization and spending, controlling for demographic characteristics, comorbidities of employees, human resource health plan benefits, and geography.Employees earning less than $75,000 show lower rates of utilization and spending on preventive measures, such as outpatient visits and prescription drugs, while having higher rates of utilization of preventable and avoidable emergency department visits and inpatient stays, resulting in lower overall health care spending among lower-salary employees.Low-salary employees enrolled in HDHPs have higher rates of acute care utilization and spending but lower rates of primary care spending compared with high-salary employees. Results suggest that HDHPs discourage routine physician-patient care among low-salary employees.

Objectives There is an ongoing policy discussion regarding an adequate breadth of provider networks. Health plans with "restricted networks" of providers have proved surprisingly popular on the Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges because of a substantial gap in premiums between plans with open networks and closed networks. The objective of this paper is to assess which other attributes of the provider network matter to patients when choosing health insurance. Study design We used a discrete choice experiment to analyze the effect of previously unobserved characteristics regarding provider networks on plan choice, including wait time, breadth, travel time, whether the plan covers care for their personal doctor, and monthly premium. Hypothetical plan options were offered to respondents of an online survey using Qualtrics software. Methods We used mixed multinomial logit models to estimate preference-based utilities for attributes of primary care provider networks and willingness to pay. Results Coverage of a personal doctor was the most important attribute, followed by premium, wait time to see a primary care provider, the breadth of the network, and travel time to the closest doctor covered by the plan. Respondents were willing to pay $95 per month to have a plan that covers care for their personal doctor, and they were willing to wait 6 days for an appointment to have a plan covering care for their personal doctor. Conclusions The results of this study provide new insights to federal and state legislators developing new models or standards on network adequacy and patient decision support tools.

Objectives To determine whether a program that eliminated pharmacy co-pays, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) program, decreased health care spending. Previous studies have found that value-based insurance designs like the ZDC program have little or no impact on total health care spending. ZDC included an expansive set of medications related to 4 chronic diseases rather than a limited set of medications for 1 or 2 chronic diseases. Additionally, ZDC focused on the most at-risk patients. Study design ZDC began in 2014 and enrolled patients over time based on (1) when a patient answered a call from a nurse care manager and (2) when a patient or their employer changed the benefit structure to meet the program criteria. During 2015 and 2016, 265 patients with at least 1 chronic condition (asthma, diabetes, hypertension, mental illness) enrolled in ZDC. Methods Observational study using within-patient variation and variation in patient enrollment month to identify the impact of the ZDC program on health spending measures. We used 100% BCBSLA claims data from January 2015 to June 2018. Monthly level event studies were used to test for differential spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. Results We found that total spending decreased by $205.9 (P = .049) per member per month, or approximately 18%. We saw a decrease in medical spending ($195.0; P = .023) but did not detect a change in pharmacy spending ($7.59; P = .752). We found no evidence of changes in spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. Conclusions The ZDC program provides evidence that value-based insurance designs that incorporate a comprehensive set of medications and focus on populations with chronic disease can reduce spending.

Objectives To determine the impact of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on health care use among individuals with bipolar disorder. Study design Interrupted time series with propensity score-matched control group design, using a national health insurer's claims data set with medical, pharmacy, and enrollment data. Methods The intervention group was composed of 2862 members with bipolar disorder who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan and then 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were propensity score matched 1:3 to contemporaneous controls in low-deductible plans. The main outcomes included out-of-pocket spending per health care service, mental health-related outpatient visits (subclassified as visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers and to psychiatrists), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. Results Mean pre- to post-index date out-of-pocket spending per visit on all mental health office visits, nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and psychiatrist visits increased by 21.9% (95% CI, 15.1%-28.6%), 33.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-65.5%), and 17.8% (95% CI, 12.2%-23.4%), respectively, among HDHP vs control members. The HDHP group experienced a -4.6% (95% CI, -11.7% to 2.5%) pre- to post change in mental health outpatient visits relative to controls, a -10.9% (95% CI, -20.6% to -1.3%) reduction in nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and unchanged psychiatrist visits. ED visits and hospitalizations were also unchanged. Conclusions After a mandated switch to HDHPs, members with bipolar disorder experienced an 11% decline in visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers but unchanged psychiatrist visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations. HDHPs do not appear to have a "blunt instrument" effect on health care use in bipolar disorder; rather, patients might make trade-offs to preserve important care.

Innovative, cost-neutral plan designs that cover more essential services on a predeductible basis, while decreasing exposure to and spending on harmful care, would better meet the clinical and financial needs of millions of Americans.

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are frequently used to treat patients with cancer. Unlike intravenous chemotherapy, OAMs are covered by prescription drug plans. We examined barriers to initiation of OAMs in 116 patients with prostate or kidney cancer (149 unique prescriptions). We found that the median time from initial prescription to prior authorization was 3 days and the median time from initial prescription to patient receipt of drug was 12 days. Seventy-three percent of all prescriptions required 2 or more phone calls by clinic staff and 40% required 5 or more calls. Of 107 prescriptions with data available, 54% utilized financial assistance; these required significantly more phone calls (P = .0001) and led to a longer median time to drug obtainment (P = .003) compared with those that did not require financial assistance. In those prescriptions with both initial and final co-pay information available, the initial out-of-pocket mean and median co-pays were $1226.03 and $329.73, respectively, but these dropped to $124.57 and $25.00 after utilization of co-pay assistance programs, excluding those with a $0 final co-pay. These early observations suggest that a more efficient process for initiation of OAMs is needed.

To evaluate the impact of enrollment in a consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending and on the financial burden associated with healthcare utilization.Using commercial claims data from 2011 through 2013, we estimated difference-in-differences models that compared changes in outcomes for individuals who switched to CDHPs (CDHP group) with outcome changes for individuals who remained in traditional plans (traditional plan group).We estimated the impact of CDHP enrollment on OOP spending at the point of care and on having high financial burden, defined as whether an enrollee spent 3% or more of household income on OOP spending. Additionally, we assessed these outcomes for 2 subgroups: those with lower household income and those with chronic conditions.Within the first year of CDHP enrollment, CDHP enrollees experienced a mean marginal increase in OOP spending of $285 (41% increase; 95% CI, $271-$299; P.001) relative to traditional plan enrollees. The lower-income and chronic conditions subgroups experienced mean marginal increases in OOP costs of $306 (44% increase; 95% CI, $257-$353; P.001) and $387 (56% increase; 95% CI, $339-$435; P.001), respectively. The probability of an enrollee having excessive financial burden increased by 4.3 percentage points (95% CI, 4.0-4.6; P.001) for the full CDHP sample. These effects were about 3 times larger for the lower-income subgroup (12.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.7-13.8; P.001) and 2 times larger for the chronic conditions subgroup (8.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.9-9.1; P.001).CDHP enrollment led to a significant increase in financial burden associated with healthcare utilization, especially for those with lower incomes and those with chronic conditions.

Amending regulations to expand the "safe harbor" by allowing predeductible coverage of high-value services and medications for chronic diseases would provide Americans a plan option that better meets their clinical and financial needs.

To assess the impact of consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) enrollment on low-value healthcare spending.We performed a quasi-experimental analysis using insurance claims data from 376,091 patients aged 18 to 63 years continuously enrolled in a plan from a large national commercial insurer from 2011 to 2013. We measured spending on 26 low-value healthcare services that offer unclear or no clinical benefit.Employing a difference-in-differences approach, we compared the change in spending on low-value services for patients switching from a traditional health plan to a CDHP with the change in spending on low-value services for matched patients remaining in a traditional plan.Switching to a CDHP was associated with a $231.60 reduction in annual outpatient spending (95% CI, -$341.65 to -$121.53); however, no significant reductions were observed in annual spending on the 26 low-value services (--$3.64; 95% CI, -$9.60 to $2.31) or on these low-value services relative to overall outpatient spending (-$7.86 per $10,000 in outpatient spending; 95% CI, -$18.43 to $2.72). Similarly, a small reduction was noted for low-value spending on imaging (-$1.76; 95% CI, -$3.39 to -$0.14), but not relative to overall imaging spending, and no significant reductions were noted in low-value laboratory spending.CDHPs in their current form may represent too blunt an instrument to specifically curtail low-value healthcare spending.

To test if offering zero generic co-pays for oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) and statins increases generic dispensing for low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients with diabetes enrolled in Medicare Part D.We analyzed a natural experiment in which LIS recipients were randomized to Part D plans in 2008. Some plans placed selected generic OADs and statins on zero co-pay tiers whereas others did not. Randomization eliminated selection effects which could bias the study findings.We analyzed a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes from the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse using Part D claims, formulary provisions, and co-pay tiers together with a special file prepared by CMS that identified all randomly assigned LIS recipients in 2008. We calculated proportions using generic drugs in the 2 classes and annual days' supply among users in plans with and without zero co-pay tiers for the country as a whole and California (where zero co-pay plans were particularly popular).We found that the demand for generic OADs was not significantly different in plans with and without zero co-pay tiers. By contrast, a large difference was observed in the percent of LIS recipients using generic statins in plans with zero co-pay tiers (61.4% vs 54.6%; P.01). However, the difference disappeared once we controlled for formulary restrictions on the most popular brand statin at the time (Lipitor).This cautionary tale suggests that policy makers should give greater consideration to formulary provisions when evaluating the effects of free generics in value-based insurance designs.

Out-of-network (OON) care is one area where patients might be more likely to challenge their healthcare bills due to the high out-of-pocket costs and unexpected charges related to emergency care or hospital-affiliated providers. We aimed to determine whether, and under what circumstances, patients negotiate with either insurers or providers when services are billed OON and how often patients that do engage in negotiation are successful.Internet-based survey.We conducted a 2011 Internet survey on OON care on a nationally representative sample of privately insured adults (n = 721). We considered whether patients would be more likely to negotiate OON charges by demographic characteristics and under several scenarios: emergency visits, bills from hospital-affiliated OON providers at in-network hospitals, and balance bills.We found patients negotiated 19% of OON bills, were successful in lowering their costs 56% of the time, and were more likely to be successful negotiating with providers compared with insurers (63% vs 37%; P.01). Men were more likely than women to be successful in lowering their costs (76% vs 50%; P.05). OON bills for emergencies, providers at in-network hospitals, and with a balance bill were more likely to be negotiated, although bills from providers at in-network hospitals and with balance bills were less likely to be successfully negotiated.Patients had low rates of success in negotiating OON bills for emergency care and for OON providers at in-network hospitals. Policy makers aiming to protect patients under these scenarios should consider policies that allow for an easily accessible, formal, and unbiased mediation process.

Aiming to increase healthcare value, consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs)-high-deductible health insurance plus a personal spending account-equip enrollees with decision-support tools and expose them to the financial implications of their medical decisions. This study examines whether medically knowledgeable consumers are more or less likely to select a CDHP than individuals without medical knowledge.Using University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) human resources data, our observational cross-sectional study analyzed the health plan enrollment choices of 3552 faculty and 8429 staff employees.We compared CDHP selection in 2 cohorts: 1) physicians and nonphysician faculty and 2) nurses and nonmedical staff. We used probit regression models to predict CDHP selection, adjusted for job title, demographics (ie, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, employee income), and coverage type (eg, single).Approximately 5% of UCLA employees chose the CDHP. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and coverage type, physicians were less likely to choose these plans than nonmedical faculty, when all other covariates were fixed at their means (predicted probability change [ΔP], -1.6%; standard error [SE], 0.8%; P = .05). Nurses also appeared less inclined to choose these plans than nonmedical staff, which approached statistical significance (ΔP, -1.9%; SE, 1.0%; P = .07).Overall low rates of CDHP selection were observed in consumers with and without medical knowledge. Although physicians and nurses seem to be better positioned as CDHP consumers, they appeared less likely to select these health plans compared with nonmedical faculty and staff in our study.

To estimate the cost impact of a $0 co-pay prescription drug program implemented by a large healthcare employer as a part of its employee wellness program.A $0 co-pay program that included approximately 200 antihypertensive, antidiabetic, and antilipid medications was offered to Geisinger Health System (GHS) employees covered by Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) in 2007. Claims data from GHP for the years 2005 to 2011 were obtained. The sample was restricted to continuously enrolled members with Geisinger primary care providers throughout the study period.The intervention group, defined as 2251 GHS employees receiving any of the drugs eligible for $0 co-pay, was propensity score matched based on 2 years of pre-intervention claims data to a comparison group, which was defined as 3857 non-GHS employees receiving the same eligible drugs at the same time. Generalized linear models were used to estimate differences in terms of per-member-per-month (PMPM) claims amounts related to prescription drugs and medical care.Total healthcare spending (medical plus prescription drug spending) among the GHS employees was lower by $144 PMPM (13%; 95% CI, $38-$250) during the months when they were taking any of the eligible drugs. Considering the drug acquisition cost and the forgone co-pay, the estimated return on investment over a 5-year period was 1.8.This finding suggests that VBID implementation within the context of a wider employee wellness program targeting the appropriate population can potentially lead to positive cost savings.

To evaluate the sensitivity of Medicare beneficiaries to premiums and benefits when selecting healthcare plans after the introduction of Part D.We matched respondents in the 2008 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey to the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans available to them using the Bid Pricing Tool and previously unavailable data on beneficiaries' plan choices.We estimated a 2-stage nested logit model of Medicare plan choice decision making, including the decision to choose traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare or an MA plan, and for those choosing MA, which specific plan they chose.Beneficiaries living in areas with higher average monthly rebates available from MA plans were more likely to choose MA rather than FFS. When choosing MA plans, beneficiaries are roughly 2 to 3 times more responsive to dollars spent to reduce cost sharing than reductions in their premium. We calculated an elasticity of plan choice with respect to the monthly MA premium of -0.20. Beneficiaries with lower incomes are more sensitive to plan premiums and cost sharing than higher-income beneficiaries.MA plans appear to have a limited incentive to aggressively price their products, and seem to compete primarily over reduced beneficiary cost sharing. Given the limitations of the current plan choice environment, policies designed to encourage the selection of lower-cost plans may require increasing premium differences between plans and providing the tools to enable beneficiaries to easily assess those differences.

The Affordable Care Act eliminated patient cost sharing for evidence-based preventive care, yet the impact of this policy on colonoscopy and mammography rates is unclear. We examined the elimination of cost sharing among small business beneficiaries of Humana, a large national insurer.This was a retrospective interrupted time series analysis of whether the change in cost-sharing policy was associated with a change in screening utilization, using grandfathered plans as a comparison group.We compared beneficiaries in small business nongrandfathered plans that were required to eliminate cost sharing (intervention) with those in grandfathered plans that did not have to change cost sharing (control). There were 63,246 men and women aged 50 to 64 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening, and 30,802 women aged 50 to 64 years eligible for breast cancer screening. The primary outcome variables were rates of colonoscopy and mammography per person-month, with secondary analysis of colonoscopy rates coded as preventive only.There was no significant change in the level or slope of colonoscopy and mammography utilization for intervention plans relative to the control plans. There was also no significant relevant change among those colonoscopies coded as preventive.The results suggest that the implementation of the policy is not having its intended effects, as cost sharing rates for colonoscopy and mammography did not change substantially, and utilization of colonoscopy and mammography changed little, following this new policy approach.

Many health programs struggle with low enrollment rates.To compare the characteristics of populations enrolled in a new health plan when employer groups implement voluntary versus automatic enrollment approaches.We analyzed enrollment rates resulting from 2 different strategies: voluntary and automatic enrollment. We used regression modeling to estimate the associations of patient characteristics with the probability of enrolling within each strategy. The subjects were 5014 eligible employees from 11 self-insured employers who had purchased the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), which offers free or discounted copayments for diabetes related medications, testing supplies, and physician visits. Six employers used voluntary enrollment while 5 used automatic enrollment. The main outcome of interest was enrollment into the DHP. Predictors were gender, age, race/ethnicity, dependent status, household income, education level, number of comorbidities, and employer group.Overall, the proportion of eligible members who were enrolled within the automatic enrollment strategy was 91%, compared with 35% for voluntary enrollment. Income was a significant predictor for voluntary enrollment but not for automatic enrollment. Within automatic enrollment, covered dependents, Hispanics, and persons with 1 nondiabetes comorbidity were more likely to enroll than other subgroups. Employer group was also a significant correlate of enrollment. Notably, all demographic groups had higher DHP enrollment rates under automatic enrollment than under voluntary enrollment.For employer-based programs that struggle with low enrollment rates, especially among certain employee subgroups, an automatic enrollment strategy may not only increase the total number of enrollees but may also decrease some enrollment disparities.

Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MA-PDs) and standalone prescription drug plans (PDPs) face different incentives for plan design resulting from the scope of covered benefits (only outpatient drugs for PDPs versus all drug and nondrug services for Medicare Advantage [MA]/MA-PDs). The objective is to begin to explore how MA-PDs and PDPs may be responding to their different incentives related to benefit design.We compared 2012 PDP and MA-PD average formulary coverage, prior authorization (PA) or step therapy use, and copayment requirements for drugs in 6 classes used commonly among Medicare beneficiaries.We primarily used 2012 Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pharmacy Network Files and MA enrollment data. 2011 Truven Health MarketScan claims were used to estimate drug prices and to compute drug market share. Average coverage and PA/step rates, and average copayment requirements, were weighted by plan enrollment and drug market share.MA-PDs are generally more likely to cover and less likely to require PA/step for brand name drugs with generic alternatives than PDPs, and MA-PDs often have lower copayment requirements for these drugs. For brands without generics, we generally found no differences in average rates of coverage or PA/step, but MA-PDs were more likely to cover all brands without generics in a class.We found modest, confirmatory evidence suggesting that PDPs and MA-PDs respond to different incentives for plan design. Future research is needed to understand the factors that influence Medicare drug plan design decisions.

Unintended consequences may result from changes in pharmacy benefit design. The objective was to determine the impact of increasing patient prescription copayments for guideline recommended, long-term asthma controller (LTC) medications on asthma-related medication use and healthcare services.We used 2005 MarketScan healthcare and pharmacy claims data to identify asthma (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] diagnosis code 493.xx) patients aged 12 to 64 years who were continuously enrolled through 2006 with ≥ 1 claim for an asthma medication in 2005. LTCs included: inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) (n = 10,251), ICS plus long-acting beta agonist (COMBO) (n =27,407), and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) (n = 20,664).Using multivariable models, we estimated the associations between changes in LTC copayments and LTC consumption and asthma-related outpatient and emergency department (ED) visits.Patients were dichotomized into ≥ $5 average increase in patient copayments per month of medication supplied (yes/no). The mean annual change (2005-2006) in copayments per month was $13.23 versus -$3.88 (ICS), $11.76 versus -$3.06 (COMBO), and $9.78 versus -$2.06 (LTRA). The ≥ $5 group experienced a significant decline in average annual days of medication supplied of -47.1 days of ICS (95% CI -43.5 to -50.8), -35.3 days of COMBO (-32.4 to -38.2), and -47.5 days of LTRA (-43.2 to -51.7). Among COMBO and LTRA medication users, the ≥ $5 copayment increase was associated with more asthma-related outpatient visits and ED visits compared with the$5 group.The findings suggest that even small changes in average copayment for asthma medications can result in significant reductions in medication use and unintended increases in healthcare services.

To determine the 2-year impact of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on high-acuity, expensive medical care.Retrospective pre-post, with propensity score-matched comparison group.We studied emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and related expenditures among 15,847 HMO members for 1 year before and up to 2 years after an employer-mandated switch to HDHPs, compared with 15,847 propensity-matched controls who remained in HMOs. Members were aged 1 to 64 years and insured between 2001 and 2008.Emergency department visits among HDHP members declined by 15.0% and 15.7% from baseline to the first and second follow-up years, respectively (95% confidence intervals -21.1% to -8.4% and -24.1% to -6.4%, respectively). Rates of nonemergent visits declined significantly in both years (-19.6% [-28.2% to-9.9%] and -18.1% [-29.8% to -4.4%], respectively), while intermediate-severity visits declined to a lesser degree (-13.4% [-23.0% to -2.5%] in the first and -10.9% [-24.4% to 5.1%] in the second follow-up year). Reductions in emergent visits were not detectable in either the first or second follow-up year (-9.7% [-26.9% to 11.5%] and -15.3% [-36.8% to 13.3%], respectively). Hospitalization rates decreased in the first follow-up year (-22.8% [-33.8% to -10.0%]), but hospitalization and cost reductions were not detectable by the second follow-up year (-11.8% [-27.9% to 7.9%] and 1.9% [-22.2% to 33.4%], respectively).HDHP members experienced sustained reductions in emergency department visits over 2 years, but reductions in hospital utilization and costs were not apparent by the second year. Longer-term studies that assess deferred utilization and its effects are needed.

To investigate the effects of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) on healthcare spending and on the use of recommended preventive care.Retrospective study.We analyzed claims and enrollment data for 808,707 households from 53 large US employers, 28 of which offered HDHPs or CDHPs. We estimated the effects of HDHP or CDHP enrollment on healthcare cost growth between 2004 and 2005 using a difference-in-difference method that compared cost growth for families who were enrolled in HDHPs or CDHPs for the first time in 2005 with cost growth for families who were not offered HDHPs or CDHPs. Control families were weighted using propensity score weights to match the treatment families. Using similar methods, we examined the effects of HDHP or CDHP enrollment on the use of preventive care and the effects of HDHP or CDHP offering by employers on the mean cost growth.Families enrolling in HDHPs or CDHPs for the first time spent 14% less than similar families enrolled in conventional plans. Families in firms offering an HDHP or a CDHP spent less than those in other firms. Significant savings for enrollees were realized only for plans with deductibles of at least $1000, and savings decreased with generous employer contributions to healthcare accounts. Enrollment in HDHPs or CDHPs was also associated with moderate reductions in the use of preventive care.The HDHPs or CDHPs with at least a $1000 deductible significantly reduced healthcare spending, but they also reduced the use of preventive care in the first year. This merits additional study because of concerns about enrollee health.

To evaluate the impact of switching from an HMO to a high-deductible health plan on the costs and utilization of maternity care.Pre–post design, with a control group.We compared 229 women who delivered babies before or after their employers mandated a switch from HMO coverage to a high-deductible health plan, with a control group of 2180 matched women who delivered babies while their employers remained in an HMO plan. Administrative claims from a large Massachusetts-based health insurance program were used in a difference-in-differences regression analysis.Mean out-of-pocket maternity care costs for high-deductible group members increased from $356 for women who delivered before the insurance transition (n = 86) to $942 for women who delivered after the transition (n = 143), compared with a change from $262 (n = 711) to $282 (n = 1569) for HMO members, a relative increase of 106% (P.001) for high-deductible members. Delivery after transition to a high-deductible plan was not associated with changes in the odds of receiving early prenatal care (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-3.19), recommended prenatal visits (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.89-3.02), or postpartum care (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.32).Switching from an HMO to a high-deductible plan with exemptions for routine care increased out-of-pocket member costs for maternity care, but had no apparent adverse impacts on receipt of recommended prenatal and postpartum care.

To assess the effects of abolishing coinsurance for oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) on the social insurance fund budget in Greece.A mathematical model estimating the effect of a decrease in patient coinsurance rate on demand for and adherence to OAAs and the subsequent clinical and economic outcomes.Price elasticity of demand for antidiabetic agents was used to estimate quantity demand change as a result of a coinsurance rate decrease and consequent increased adherence to OAAs. Given the inverse relationship between OAA adherence and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level, the model calculated the mean decrease in A1C level and associated cost savings based on the cost difference between patients with controlled versus uncontrolled A1C levels.A decrease in patient coinsurance rate from 25% to 0% led to an incremental increase in OAA adherence of 30.5% and a mean decrease in A1C level of 0.6%. The A1C level decrease contributed to an 18.5% "shift" of uncontrolled patients to controlled A1C levels (7%), which in economic terms translated into savings of 324 euro per patient over a 3-year period and an investment return rate of 122.8%. A series of 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness and validity of the outcomes.The introduction of policies aimed at abolishing coinsurance for OAAs can result in improved patient outcomes and cost savings for the healthcare system.

To examine how enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) affects use of well-child visits relative to traditional plans, when preventive care is exempt from the deductible.Pre-post comparison between groups.We selected children aged18 years enrolled in a large Massachusetts health plan through employers offering only 1 type of plan. Children were in traditional plans for a 12-month baseline period between 2001 and 2004, then were either switched by a decision of the parent's employer to an HDHP or kept in the traditional plan (controls) for a 12-month follow-up period. Preventive and other office visits were exempt from the deductible and subject to copayments, as in traditional plans. The primary outcome was whether the child received well-child visits recommended for the 12-month period. Using generalized linear mixed models, we compared the change in receipt of recommended well-child visits between baseline and follow-up for the HDHP group relative to controls.We identified 1598 children who were switched to HDHPs and 10,093 controls. Between baseline and follow-up, the mean proportion of recommended well-child visits received by HDHP children decreased slightly from 0.846 to 0.841, and from 0.861 to 0.855 for controls. In adjusted models, there was no significant difference in the change in probability that recommended well-child visits were received by HDHP children compared with controls (P = .69).Receipt of recommended well-child visits did not change for children switching from traditional plans to HDHPs that exempt preventive care from the deductible.

To investigate the fairness of dental capitation insurance provider compensation amounts being paid by one of the nation's largest capitation insurance companies.Analysis of insurance company documents.The article first reports and then analyzes the capitation amounts paid by one of the nation's largest capitation plans over the past 13 years as retrieved directly from the insurance company documents. The annual rates of change in the capitation amounts are then compared with the annual rates of change in the mean dental office overhead expenses across the United States, as well as with the rates of change in income and expenses of the average US worker.The compensation (capitation amount) paid to participating providers decreased dramatically every year over the past 13 years, while the mean office overhead costs of participating providers increased every year.Solo general dentists with office overhead costs greater than or equal to the national mean likely find that the capitation amounts paid by insurance companies are an unfair compensation or are incompatible with their income objectives. Participation by solo general practitioners in capitation plans with such compensation levels would be problematic or unlikely.

Chronic and severe health problems place an enormous financial burden on individuals, employers, and health plan providers, requiring all to make tough decisions about healthcare. Specialty pharmaceuticals are increasingly attractive treatment options, but employers need tangible ways to incorporate these medications into benefit plans. Benefit managers can take a proactive role in addressing cost and compliance issues, using evidence-based data about true patient costs to develop policies that encourage employees to seek appropriate care. Achieving savings in direct and indirect costs will require more than shifting coverage, which can lead to nonadherence and increase costs elsewhere.

To evaluate the effects of patient copayment and coinsurance policies on adherence to therapy with beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers) and on the rate of initiation of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) in a population-based natural experiment.Three sequential cohorts included British Columbia residents age 66 years and older who initiated beta-blocker therapy during time intervals with full drug coverage (2001), a $10 or $25 copayment (2002), and 25% coinsurance (2003-2004). We used linked data on all prescription drug dispensings, physician services, and hospitalizations. Follow-up of each cohort was 9 months after the policy changes.We measured the proportion of subjects in each cohort who were adherent to beta-blocker therapy over time, with adherence defined as having80% of days covered. We also measured the proportion of patients initiating beta-blocker therapy after acute MI. Policy effects were evaluated using multivariable regression.Adherence to beta-blocker therapy was marginally reduced as a consequence of the copayment policy (-1.3 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.5 , -0.04) or the coinsurance policy (-0.8 percentage points, 95% CI = -2.0, 0.3). The proportion of patients initiating beta-blockers after hospitalization for acute MI remained steady at about 61% during the study period, similar to that observed in a control population of elderly Pennsylvania residents with full drug coverage.Fixed patient copayment and coinsurance policies had little negative effect on adherence to relatively inexpensive beta-blocker therapy, or initiation of beta-blockers after acute MI.

To decompose the overall effect of multitiered formularies on drug utilization and spending into the following 2 observed effects on consumer behavior: first, higher copayments on drug equivalents create an incentive to reduce the number of prescriptions, and, second, wider differential copayments between drug equivalents create an incentive to use a greater proportion of generics.We merged drug claims for 352,760 retired Medicare enrollees having employer-sponsored health insurance with benefit information. Our unit of analysis was the enrollee. We used cross-sectional variation in incentive-based formularies to compare the effects of increased copayment amounts for drug equivalents with those of increased copayment differentials between drug equivalents. The study sample may not be representative of the Medicare population.Multivariate regression analysis using the 2002 MarketScan Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits database and Benefit Plan Design database.A 10% increase in copayments for drug equivalents was associated with a 1.3% reduction in total drug spending, a 16.0% increase in out-of-pocket expenditures, a 2.0% reduction in the number of prescriptions filled, and a 0.7% reduction in proportion of prescriptions filled with generics. A 10% increase in copayment differentials between drug equivalents was associated with a 1.0% reduction in total drug spending, a 4.1% increase in out-of-pocket expenditures, a 1.0% reduction in the number of prescriptions filled, and a 0.7% increase in proportion of prescriptions filled with generics.Increasing copayment differentials between drug equivalents is as effective a strategy for reducing total drug spending as increasing copayment amounts for drug equivalents but better maintains access to prescription medications.

To examine the impact of incentive formularies on prescription drug spending shifts in formulary compliance, use of generic medications, and mail-order fulfillment in the year after introduction of a new pharmacy benefit strategy.Pre-post comparison study with matched concurrent control group (difference-indifferences analysis).Study subjects were continuously enrolled patients from a single large health plan in the northeastern United States. Health plan administrative data were used to determine the total, health plan, and out-of-pocket spending in the year before and the year after the introduction of 12 different benefit changes, including 1 in which copayments decreased.Overall, changing from a single-tier or 2-tier formulary to a 3-tier formulary was associated with a decrease in total drug spending of about 5% to 15%. Plan spending decreased more dramatically, about 20%, whereas out-of-pocket spending that resulted from higher copayments increased between 20% and100%. Changing to an incentive formulary with higher copayments was accompanied by a small but inconsistent decrease in use of nonformulary selections and a concomitant increase in both generic and formulary preferred utilization. Mail-order fulfillment doubled, albeit from a low baseline level.Switching to incentive formulary arrangements with higher levels of copayments generally led to overall lower drug costs and vice versa. These effects varied with the degree of change, level of baseline spending, and magnitude of the copayments. Whether these effects are beneficial overall depends on potential health effects and spillover effects on medical spending.

To evaluate the relationship between generic and brand copayment differentials and generic fill rate (GFR).Cross-sectional.Aggregate-level retail prescription utilization and demographic data from 2005 were used. Plan sponsors were included if they were continuously eligible with Express Scripts Inc during 2005, had no benefit change, were commercially insured, offered a subsidized benefit, adopted 1 of 2 standard formularies, and had at least 100 members. The relationship between GFR and model independent variables was examined by generalized linear modeling using a logistic function for GFR.A total of 3979 plan sponsors met the inclusion criteria. Controlling for plan demographics, factors that significantly and positively impacted generic usage were step therapy, 3-tier plan design, and increased generic and brand copayment differentials. Relative to plans without step therapy, plans with this feature had estimated GFRs that were 2.6 percentage points higher on average (P.001). Relative to plan sponsors with flat 3-tier designs, those with flat 2-tier designs, coinsurance, or tiered coinsurance had GFRs that were 2.0 (P.001), 1.5 (P.001), and 1.2 (P.01) percentage points lower, respectively. Compared with plan sponsors that had a $0 to $5 differential between generic and brand copayments, plans with $11 to $15, $16 to $20, and $21+ differentials had GFRs that were 1.9, 2.9, and 5.2 percentage points higher on average, respectively (all P.001).Factors to consider when designing a plan are benefit structure and the financial incentives used to differentiate between generics and brands.

To test the hypothesis that deductibles (copayment combined with annual limits on out-of-pocket payments) may reduce the effect of copayments on drug use for patients who expect to reach the annual limit, using as a natural experiment the introduction of copayments with an annual maximum to the seniors' drug plan in Nova Scotia.An interrupted time-series design estimated effects of the introduction of and subsequent increase in drug copayments on the use (vs nonuse) of medications and on the mean daily quantity of use among users by patients' likelihood of exceeding the annual maximum copayment. Effects on the use of less essential medications (histamine(2)-receptor antagonists) and more essential medications (oral antihyperglycemic agents) were examined. methods: Data were drug claims for beneficiaries 65 years and older from April 1, 1989, through September 30, 1992. Regression models (applied to person-month data) estimated effects of the policies on the use and quantity of medication use.Copayments ($3 per prescription and 20% of the prescription cost) were associated with reductions in the quantity of medication use, ranging from 5% to 15%, but only when the annual maximum copayment was unlikely to be reached. Introducing a 20% copayment increased the percentage who reached the annual maximum, decreasing the proportion of patients who reduced their drug use.Although copayment policies are associated with reductions in the use of essential and less essential medications, annual limits on total copayments paid will limit copayment effects to patients who are unlikely to reach the annual maximum copayment.

To assess the effects of benefit design change (BDC) on medication adherence and persistence (including switch in therapy), drug costs, and total healthcare costs.A retrospective study was performed using administrative claims data from an integrated healthcare system between January 2001 and December 2002.Continuously enrolled patients in 2001 and 2002 with allergic rhinitis, asthma, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or osteoarthritis belonged to employer groups with or without a pharmacy BDC as of January 1, 2002. Prescription status (same, switch, or discontinue), adherence among patients receiving therapy, and differences in drug costs and total healthcare costs for each disease state were measured between groups. Bivariate and multivariate statistics were used to test differences in outcomes between groups.Compared with the group without BDC, the proportion of patients who discontinued drug therapy was significantly greater in the BDC group among those with allergic rhinitis (67% vs 54%), asthma (66% vs 50%), osteoarthritis (61% vs 36%), and hypertension (39% vs 18%) (P.05 for all). Medication compliance was not affected by BDC. The year-to-year pharmacy costs per patient in the BDC group decreased $305 for patients with osteoarthritis (P.001) and $95 for patients with allergic rhinitis (P = .03). There was no significant effect on overall healthcare costs in any disease state during the year following the BDC.A pharmacy BDC may result in decreased pharmacy costs, with no effect on overall healthcare costs within 1 year for patients with allergic rhinitis, asthma, hypertension, or osteoarthritis.

To assess the effect of the 2002 Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, which raised pharmacy copayments from $2 to $7 for lower-priority patients, on medication refill decisions and health services utilization among vulnerable veterans with schizophrenia.Quasi-experimental.This study used secondary data contained in the National Psychosis Registry from June 1, 2000, through September 30, 2003, for all veterans diagnosed with schizophrenia and receiving healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Longitudinal, mixed models were used to observe changes in prescriptions, health services utilization, and pharmacy costs in veterans subject to copayments (N = 40 654) and a control group of exempt individuals (N = 39 983). Analyses controlled for demographics, substance abuse, non-VA utilization, and medical comorbidities. The Health Belief Model supported analytical criteria for factors directly related to medication adherence issues.Total prescriptions and overall pharmacy costs leveled among veterans with copayments after the medication cost increase. However, psychiatric drug refills dropped substantially, nearly 25%. Although outpatient visits were unaffected, psychiatric admissions and total inpatient days increased slightly, particularly 10 to 20 months after the policy change. Factoring in additional copayment revenue, the VA realized a $14.7-million annual net revenue gain from this subpopulation alone.These results suggest the new policy successfully reduced utilization and costs, with perhaps minimal clinical consequences to date. However, higher inpatient utilization resulting from cost-related nonadherence is troubling within an already high-risk and poorly adherent population, especially considering the reduction in psychiatric drug refills.

To examine the relative preferred placement of commonly dispensed prescription drugs and to assess variations in drug coverage across a convenience sample of 12 health insurance plans.A cross-sectional analysis of the plans focused on all 67 patented brand-name prescription drugs from among the top 200 prescribed drugs in 2004.For each plan, we created a preferred placement index representing the percentages of drugs that were positioned on the formulary with preferred placement, defined as tier 2 without restricted access. A separate cardiovascular index was also created. Sensitivity analyses determined the effect of limiting the sample to the top 25 patented branded drugs and examined the robustness of our index when prior authorization restrictions were allowed.Across 67 drugs and 12 insurance plans, drugs were rated as having preferred placement 59.1% of the time. The preferred placement index ranged from 31.3% to 88.1% across the plans for the full sample of 67 drugs; for the sample of cardiovascular drugs, the range was 25.0% to 100.0%. Results were robust across sensitivity analyses.Based on this convenience sample of 12 formularies, there is a wide variation in preferred placement of the most commonly prescribed branded medicines across insurers. The wide range implies that the specific insurance coverage a patient selects may have an effect on whether his or her prescribed drugs have preferred formulary placement and on his or her out-of-pocket drug expenditures.

To investigate the extent to which preferred drug lists and tiered formularies reflect evidence of value, as measured in published cost-utility analyses (CUAs).Using 1998-2001 data from a large registry of cost-effectiveness analyses, we examined the 2004 Florida Medicaid preferred drug list and the 2004 Harvard Pilgrim Pharmacy Program 3-tier formulary, and compared cost-utility ratios (standardized to 2002 US dollars) of drugs with preferred and nonpreferred status.Few drugs on the formularies had any cost-utility data available. Of those that did, median cost-utility ratios were somewhat higher (less favorable) for Florida's preferred drugs compared with the nonpreferred drugs (25,465 dollars vs 13,085 dollars; P = .09). Ratios did not differ for drugs on tiers 1 and 2 of the Harvard Pilgrim formulary, although they were higher for tier 3 and for excluded drugs (18,309 dollars, 18,846 dollars, 52,119 dollars, and 22,580 dollars, respectively; P = .01). Among therapies reported to be cost-saving or to have cost-utility ratios below 50,000 dollars, 77% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 73% in Harvard Pilgrim. Among dominated drug interventions (reported to be more costly and less effective than alternatives), 95% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 56% in Harvard Pilgrim.This study underscores the paucity of published cost-utility data available to formulary committees. Some discrepancies prevail between the value of drugs, as reflected in published cost-utility ratios, and the formulary placement policies of 2 large health plans.

To determine the number and characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who will be excluded from low-income prescription drug subsidies because they do not qualify under an asset test.Cross-sectional, using the US Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP); results were based on interviews occurring between October 2002 and January 2003. The sample included 9278 Medicare beneficiaries, 2929 with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).Using SIPP, each sample member's income was compared to the FPL. Income was adjusted to include only liquid assets and primary residences. The number of individuals excluded by the asset test and their characteristics and types of assets responsible were calculated.Of 13.97 million noninstitutionalized Medicare beneficiaries, 2.37 million (17%) with low incomes would be excluded from subsidized drug coverage due to the asset test. Compared to higher-income beneficiaries, the excluded individuals tended to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. Almost half of their assets were checking and savings accounts. Half of the individuals failing the test had assets less than 35,000 dollars above the allowing thresholds.Widows are disproportionately affected by the asset test. When a husband dies, income plummets but accumulated assets often exceed those allowed under Medicare legislation. During their working years Americans are encouraged to save for retirement, but by accumulating modest amounts of assets, these same people often will then not qualify for low-income drug subsidies. Modifying or eliminating the asset test would help protect individuals disadvantaged by low incomes who have modest amounts of asset holdings.

To determine whether a pharmacy benefit that varies copayments for cholesterol-lowering (CL) therapy according to expected therapeutic benefit would improve compliance and reduce use of other services.Using claims data from 88 health plans, we studied 62 274 patients aged 20 years and older who initiated CL therapy between 1997 and 2001. We examined the association between copayments and compliance in the year after initiation of therapy, and the association between compliance and subsequent hospital and emergency department (ED) use for up to 4 years after initiation.The fraction of fully compliant patients fell by 6 to 10 percentage points when copayments increased from 10 dollars to 20 dollars, depending on patient risk (P.05). Full compliance was associated with 357 fewer hospitalizations annually per 1000 high-risk patients (P.01) and 168 fewer ED visits (P.01) compared with patients not in full compliance. For patients at low risk, full compliance was associated with 42 fewer hospitalizations (P = .02) and 21 fewer ED visits (P = .22). Using these results, we simulated a policy that eliminated copayments for high- and medium-risk patients but raised them (from 10 dollars to 22 dollars) for low-risk patients. Based on a national sample of 6.3 million adults on CL therapy, this policy would avert 79,837 hospitalizations and 31,411 ED admissions annually.Although many obstacles exist, varying copayments for CL therapy by therapeutic need would reduce hospitalizations and ED use--with total savings of more than 1 billion dollars annually.

Three-tier pharmaceutical benefit systems use graded co-payments to steer patients toward "preferred" formulary medications.To evaluate physicians' knowledge of formularies and out-of-pocket costs in such systems, as well as their perceived responsibility for helping patients manage out-of-pocket costs.Self-administered written survey.Physician leaders participating in the California Medical Association Leadership Conference were surveyed.A total of 133 responses were received from 205 participants (65% response rate). Physicians reported that they were often unaware of patients' out-of-pocket costs at the time of prescribing. Fifty-nine percent of physicians reported that they never or seldom were aware of patients' "preferred" (lower cost) formulary options when prescribing, and 70% never or seldom were aware of patients' out-of-pocket costs when prescribing. Although 88% of physicians agreed that it is important that patients' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are managed, only 25% strongly or somewhat agreed that it is their "responsibility" to help. Instead, 69% of physicians believed that it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to be familiar with patients' out-of-pocket costs. Physicians reported that they receive phone calls from pharmacists concerning formulary issues after 18.6% of the prescriptions they write.Physician leaders reported that they often do not possess the knowledge to assist patients in managing out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and they depend on pharmacists to communicate patient preferences in making prescribing decisions. As a result, price preferences are communicated indirectly, likely less efficiently, rather than intentionally when prescribing decisions are made.

To examine patient attitudes related to formulary medications and medication-related decision making in multitier copayment prescription drug plans.A cross-sectional retrospective analysis.Data were collected via mail survey from a random sample of 25,008 members of a managed care organization. The selected members were enrolled in a variety of 2- and 3-tier copayment plans and were taking prescription medication to treat 1 or more of 5 chronic disease states.Most respondents did not believe that formulary drugs were safer or more effective than nonformulary drugs, but 39.7% thought that formulary drugs were relatively less expensive. Most respondents appeared willing to consider switching from a nonformulary drug to a formulary drug with a lower copayment. The percent of respondents who reported they would be very unlikely or unlikely to switch was only 15.3% for a new prescription and 24.2% for a refill prescription. Medication efficacy and physician opinion were important factors in plan members' switching decisions. Cost was an important factor for some members, but older plan members were less likely to report that cost was important.Multitier plan members generally believed that drugs are placed on the formulary for reasons of cost rather than safety or efficacy. Most plan members were receptive to switching from a nonformulary to a formulary medication, but financial incentives alone may not convince some plan members to make the switch.

To examine whether there are differential impacts of patient cost sharing and health plan organizational characteristics on the use of a recommended cancer screening service (mammography) versus a controversial cancer screening service (prostate cancer screening [PCS]).Observational cohort using the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.A nationally representative sample of privately insured individuals was examined. Outcome measures were the receipt of mammography and PCS. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of patient cost sharing and health plan organizational characteristics on the receipt of mammography and PCS, controlling for other covariates.Patient cost sharing and gatekeeper requirements were strong predictors of PCS but were statistically insignificant predictors of mammography. Men in health plans with a copayment over dollar 10 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19-0.78) or with deductibles over dollar 250 (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.23-0.62) were significantly less likely to receive PCS than men in plans with no or lower copayments and deductibles. Men in gatekeeper plans were less likely to receive PCS than those without gatekeepers (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.29-0.81).We found the impact of cost sharing on utilization is different between mammography and PCS. Prostate cancer screening utilization appears to respond to financial incentives while mammography utilization does not. The use of copayments, deductibles, and gatekeepers may discourage controversial services but may not have an adverse effect on more recommended services. These findings have implications for the design of insurance benefits and plan organizational structure.