Search

OBJECTIVE The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease–related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year, followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1,000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. RESULTS HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months [95% CI 0.4, 1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months [0.5, 5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months [1.2, 6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to control subjects at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common in the U.S. health insurance market and are intended to reduce the use of low-value services, but evidence suggests that HDHP enrollees also reduce the use of high-value services. This study examined the effects of HDHPs on enrollees with mental health conditions, a population with high levels of unmet treatment need, often because of financial barriers. Enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder have greater treatment needs and unique barriers to care, perhaps changing their response to an HDHP.Commercial health insurance claims data in a difference-in-differences design was used to evaluate the effect of an employer's offer of an HDHP on 6,627,128 enrollee-years among enrollees with mental health conditions, stratified by having a co-occurring substance use disorder or not.Among enrollees without a co-occurring substance use disorder, an HDHP offer was associated with a 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.4%-7.2%) reduction in overall spending on mental health care, despite an 11.3% (95% CI=1.0%-21.6%) increase in spending on mental health-related emergency department visits. Among enrollees with a co-occurring substance use disorder, no significant changes attributable to an HDHP offer were found in most categories of spending on combined mental health and substance use disorder care, apart from a 4.5% (95% CI=1.9%-7.2%) reduction in spending on psychotropic medications.HDHPs may reduce use of necessary care among enrollees with mental health conditions, which could exacerbate undertreatment in this population and result in adverse health outcomes.

Background and objectives High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) as a type of consumer-directed health insurance plan aim to control unnecessary service utilization and share the responsibility in payments and care with the patient. Our objective was to systematically pool the medical and non-medical impacts of HDHPs on patients with diabetes. Methods We searched databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Wiley, to identify relevant published studies. We outlined the eligibility criteria based on the study population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and types of studies (PICOT). We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published in English, including quasi-experimental, observational, and cross-sectional studies in this review. We used the narrative data synthesis method to categorize and interpret the results. Results Initial search yielded 149 results. After removing duplicates and screening for relevant titles and abstracts, and reviewing full texts, 11 studies met eligibility criteria. Overall, diabetic patients with HDHP were less likely to adhere to treatment and prescription refills, utilize fewer healthcare services and medications, and more likely to have acute emergency visits than their counterparts enrolled in low-deductible plans. However, the results on overall healthcare costs and the final health outcome were unclear. Conclusions It appears that HDHPs negatively impact low-income diabetic patients by leading them to forgo preventive and primary care services and experience excessive preventable emergency department visits. The socioeconomic characteristics of patients must be considered when developing HDHP policies, and adjustments should be made to HDHPs accordingly.

Despite rapidly rising health expenditure associated with population aging, empirical evidence on the effects of cost-sharing on older people is still limited. This study estimated the effects of cost-sharing on the utilization of healthcare and health among older people, the most intensive users of healthcare. We employed a regression discontinuity design by exploiting a drastic reduction in the coinsurance rate from 30 to 10% at age 70 in Japan. We used large administrative claims data as well as income information at the individual level provided by a municipality. Using the claims data with 1,420,252 person-month observations for health expenditure, we found that reduced cost-sharing modestly increased outpatient expenditure, with an implied price elasticity of – 0.07. When examining the effects of reduced cost-sharing by income, we found that the price elasticities for outpatient expenditure were almost zero, – 0.08, and – 0.11 for lower-, middle-, and higher-income individuals, respectively, suggesting that lower-income individuals do not have more elastic demand for outpatient care compared with other income groups. Using large-scale mail survey data with 3404 observations for self-reported health, we found that the cost-sharing reduction significantly improved self-reported health only among lower-income individuals, but drawing clear conclusions about health outcomes is difficult because of a lack of strong graphical evidence to support health improvement. Our results suggest that varying cost-sharing by income for older people (i.e., smaller cost-sharing for lower-income individuals and larger cost-sharing for higher-income individuals) may reduce health expenditure without compromising health.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Long-term, continuous treatment with medication like buprenorphine is the gold standard for opioid use disorder (OUD). As high deductible health plans (HDHPs) become more prevalent in the commercial insurance market, they may pose financial barriers to people with OUD. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of HDHPs on continuity of buprenorphine treatment, concurrent visits for counseling/psychotherapy and OUD-related evaluation and management, and out-of-pocket spending. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis comparing trends in outcomes among enrollees whose employers offer an HDHP (treatment group) to enrollees whose employers never offer an HDHP (comparison group). PARTICIPANTS: Enrollees with OUD from a national sample of commercial health insurance plans during 2007–2017 who initiate buprenorphine treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment; probabilities of continuous buprenorphine treatment ≥30, ≥90, ≥180, and ≥365 days; probability of concurrent (i.e., within the same month) behavioral therapy (i.e., counseling or psychotherapy); probability of concurrent OUD-related evaluation and management visits; proportions of buprenorphine treatment episodes with counseling/psychotherapy and evaluation and management visits; and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on buprenorphine, behavioral therapy, and evaluation and management visits. KEY RESULTS: HDHPs were associated with an average increase of $98 (95% CI: $48, $150) on OOP spending on buprenorphine per treatment episode but no change in the number of days of continuous buprenorphine treatment or concurrent use of related services. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs do not reduce continuity of buprenorphine treatment among commercially insured enrollees with OUD but may increase financial burden for this population. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07094-9.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, although medications may be subject to traditional copayment arrangements. This study examined effects of HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use and quality of care among individuals with bipolar disorder.This quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2014) for a national sample of 3,532 members with bipolar disorder, ages 12-64, continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤$500) and then for 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were matched to 18,923 contemporaneous individuals in low-deductible plans (control group). Outcome measures were out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, psychotropics for other disorders, and all other medications and appropriate laboratory monitoring for psychotropics.Relative to the control group, annual out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased 20.8% among HDHP members (95% confidence interval [CI]=14.9%-26.7%), and the absolute increase was $36 (95% CI=$25.9-$45.2). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (27.1%; 95% CI=17.4%-36.7%) and anticonvulsants (19.2%; 95% CI=11.9%-26.6%) but remained stable for lithium (-3.7%; 95% CI=-12.2% to 4.8%). No statistically significant changes were detected in use of bipolar disorder medications, other psychotropics, or all other medications or in appropriate laboratory monitoring for bipolar disorder medications.HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced a moderate increase in out-of-pocket spending for medications but preserved bipolar disorder medication use. Findings may reflect individuals' perceptions of the importance of these medications for their functioning and well-being.

BACKGROUND: For people with diabetes, adherence to prescribed medications is essential. However, the rising prevalence of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), and prices of diabetes medications such as insulin, could deter adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of HDHP on cost-related medication non-adherence (CRN) among non-elderly adults with diabetes in the US. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional survey. SETTING: National Health Interview Survey, 2011–2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 7469 privately insured adults ages 18–64 with diabetes who were prescribed medications and enrolled in a HDHP or a traditional commercial health plan (TCP). MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported measures of CRN were compared between enrollees in HDHPs and TCPs overall and among the subset using insulin. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics using multivariable linear regression models. KEY RESULTS: HDHP enrollees were more likely than TCP enrollees to not fill a prescription (13.4% vs 9.9%; adjusted percentage point difference (AD) 3.4 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.4]); skip medication doses (11.4% vs 8.5%; AD 2.8 [CI 1.0 to 4.7]); take less medication (11.1% vs 8.8%; AD 2.3 [CI 0.5 to 4.0]); delay filling a prescription to save money (14.4% vs 10.8%; AD 3.0 [CI 1.1 to 4.9]); and to have any form of CRN (20.4% vs 15.5%; AD 4.4 [CI 2.2 to 6.7]). Among those taking insulin, HDHP enrollees were more likely to have any CRN (25.1% vs 18.9%; AD 5.9 [CI 1.1 to 10.8]). CONCLUSION: HDHPs are associated with greater CRN among people with diabetes, particularly those prescribed insulin. For people with diabetes, enrollment in non-HDHPs might reduce CRN to prescribed medications. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06937-9.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of high-deductible health plans on elective surgery (tonsillectomy) in the pediatric population.Cross-sectional study.Health claims database from a third-party payer.Data were reviewed for children up to 18 years of age who underwent tonsillectomy or arm fracture repair (nonelective control) from 2016 to 2019. Incidence of surgery by health plan deductible (high, low, or government insured) and met or unmet status of deductibles were compared.A total of 10,047 tonsillectomy claims and 9903 arm fracture repair claims met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The incidence of tonsillectomy was significantly different across deductible plan types. Patients with met deductibles were more likely to undergo tonsillectomy. In patients with deductibles ≥$4000, a 1.75-fold increase in tonsillectomy was observed in those who had met their deductible as compared with those who had not. These findings were not observed in controls (nonelective arm fracture). For those with met deductibles, those with high deductibles were much more likely to undergo tonsillectomy than those with low, moderate, and government deductibles. Unmet high deductibles were least likely to undergo tonsillectomy.Health insurance plan type influences the incidence of pediatric elective surgery such as tonsillectomy but not procedures such as nonelective repair of arm fracture. High deductibles may discourage elective surgery for those deductibles that are unmet, risking inappropriate care of vulnerable pediatric patients. However, meeting the deductible may increase incidence, raising the question of overutilization.

In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence.Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low ($35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models.After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P.001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P.001).Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

Objectives To examine changes in carve-out financial requirements (copayments, coinsurance, use of deductibles, and out-of-pocket maxima) following the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). Data source/study setting Specialty mental health benefit design information for employer-sponsored carve-out plans from a national managed behavioral health organization's claims processing engine (2008-2013). Study design This pre-post study reports linear and logistic regression as the main analysis. Data collection/extraction methods NA. Principal findings Copayments for in-network emergency room (-$44.9, 95% CI: -78.3, -11.5; preparity mean: $56.2), outpatient services (eg, individual psychotherapy: -$7.4, 95% CI: -10.5, -4.2; preparity mean: $17.8), and out-of-network coinsurance for emergency room (-11 percentage points, 95% CI: -16.7, -5.4; preparity mean: 38.8 percent) and outpatient (eg, individual psychotherapy: -5.8 percentage points, 95% CI: -10.0, -1.6; preparity mean 41.0 percent) decreased. Probability of family OOP maxima use (29 percentage points, 95% CI: 19.3, 38.6; preparity mean: 36 percent) increased. In-network outpatient coinsurance increased (eg, individual psychotherapy: 4.5 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.9; preparity mean: 2.7 percent), as did probability of use of family deductibles (15 percentage points, 95% CI: 6.1, 23.3; preparity mean: 38 percent). Conclusions MHPAEA was associated with increased generosity in most financial requirements observed here. However, increased use of deductibles may have reduced generosity for some patients.

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.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) protects against HIV infection; yet, even with its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012, less than 10% of eligible users in the United States are currently taking PrEP. While there are multiple factors that influence PrEP uptake and pose barriers to PrEP implementation, here we focus on PrEP’s cost in the United States, which, at the current list price of $2000 per month and with high levels of cost sharing, can leave insured users with more than $1000 in out-of-pocket costs every year. We discuss how patient deductibles, monthly premiums, copayments, and coinsurance vary widely and may increase the financial burden. Although drug payment-assistance programs have made PrEP more affordable to uninsured and underinsured users, lack of insurance is a barrier to PrEP accessibility. The FDA approved a generic version in 2017; however, that version has not been distributed to US consumers and may not be more affordable. As other countries begin implementing PrEP programs, the extent of PrEP’s availability as a tool in the global fight against HIV remains to be seen.

Relief in Sight Relief may be in sight for Medicare Part D beneficiaries who currently face high out-of-pocket spending. Redesign of the program is expected to be part of the fiscal year 2022 budge...

Key Points Question Can physicians accurately estimate a patient’s out-of-pocket expenses if they are given all the necessary information about a drug’s price and the patient’s insurance plan? Findings In this survey study of 371 primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and rheumatologists, only 21% could accurately estimate out-of-pocket drug costs using information about the drug’s price and an insurance plan’s cost-sharing mechanisms, including deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximums. Meaning These findings suggest that few physicians are able to estimate out-of-pocket costs accurately enough to have informed conversations about financial trade-offs with their patients., This survey study examines whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug’s price and a patient’s insurance plan., Importance One-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage. Objective To determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug’s price and a patient’s insurance plan. Design, Setting, and Participants This national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures In a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan’s deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug’s out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan’s 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics. Results The response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance This survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

This cross-sectional study examines the association between insurance plan deductibles and forgoing of health care, with consideration of socioeconomic factors, in a consumer-driven health care system with universal coverage in Switzerland., Key Points Question Are health insurance deductibles associated with forgoing of health care in a consumer-driven health care system with universal coverage? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 11 872 participants in Geneva, Switzerland, between 2007 and 2019, confounder-adjusted analysis revealed that those with higher-deductible plans were significantly more likely to forgo health care than those with low-deductible plans independent of socioeconomic status, known comorbidities, and cardiovascular risk factors. Meaning The findings suggest that despite a fixed range of health insurance deductibles established by the government, deductibles may be associated with forgoing of health care in a high-performing universal health care system., Importance Characteristics of a health care system can facilitate forgoing of health care owing to economic reasons and can influence population health. Whether health insurance deductibles are associated with forgoing of health care in a consumer-driven health care system with universal coverage, such as the Swiss health system, remains to be determined. Objective To assess the association between insurance plan deductibles and forgoing of health care with consideration of socioeconomic factors. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, using data collected from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019. Population-based samples were obtained yearly through random stratified sampling by age and sex of the general population aged 20 to 74 years. Participants were invited to an appointment at 1 of the 3 study sites in Geneva, where they completed a sociodemographic and health questionnaire. Exposures Insurance plan deductible level. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was forgoing of health care owing to economic reasons. Unadjusted and multivariable Poisson models were used to assess the association between deductible level and forgoing of health care. Differences in forgoing health care across the range of health insurance deductibles or household income levels were quantified using the relative index of inequality (RII). Results The study group included 11 872 participants (5974 [50.3%] male; median age, 48.1 years [interquartile range, 38.7-59.1 years]); 1146 (9.7%) reported forgoing health care. Participants with high-deductible plans reported forgoing health care more frequently than those with low-deductible plans (331 [13.5%] vs 591 [8.7%]). In adjusted analysis, higher-deductible plans were associated with a greater likelihood of forgoing health care (RII, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7-3.0; P

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Timely evaluation of acute chest pain is necessary, although most evaluations will not find significant coronary disease. With employers increasingly adopting high-deductible health plans (HDHP), how HDHPs impact subsequent care after an emergency department (ED) diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain is unclear. Methods: Using a commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database, we identified members 19 to 63 years old whose employers exclusively offered low-deductible (≤$500) plans in 1 year, then, at an index date, mandated enrollment in HDHPs (≥$1000) for a subsequent year. We matched them with contemporaneous members whose employers only offered low-deductible plans. Primary outcomes included population rates of index ED visits with a principal diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain, admission during index ED visits, and index ED visits followed by noninvasive cardiac testing within 3 and 30 days, coronary revascularization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization within 30 days. We performed a cumulative interrupted time-series analysis, comparing changes in annual outcomes between the HDHP and control groups before and after the index date using aggregate-level segmented regression. Members from higher-poverty neighborhoods were a subgroup of interest. Results: After matching, we included 557 501 members in the HDHP group and 5 861 990 in the control group, with mean ages of 42.0 years, 48% to 49% female, and 67% to 68% non-Hispanic White individuals. Employer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with a relative decrease of 4.3% (95% CI, –5.9 to –2.7; absolute change, –4.5 [95% CI, –6.3 to –2.8] per 10 000 person-years) in nonspecific chest pain ED visits and 11.3% (95% CI, –14.0 to –8.6) decrease (absolute change, –1.7 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, –2.1 to –1.2]) in visits leading to hospitalization. There was no significant decrease in subsequent noninvasive testing or revascularization procedures. An increase in 30-day acute myocardial infarction admissions was not statistically significant (15.9% [95% CI, –1.0 to 32.7]; absolute change, 0.3 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, –0.01 to 0.5]) but was significant among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods. Conclusions: Employer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with decreased nonspecific chest pain ED visits and hospitalization from these ED visits, but no significant change in post-ED cardiac testing. However, HDHP enrollment was associated with increased 30-day acute myocardial infarction admission after ED diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods.

This cross-sectional study investigates the association of branded prescription drug rebate size and patient out-of-pocket costs., Key Points Question Are prescription drug rebates associated with increased patient out-of-pocket costs? Findings In this cross-sectional study of estimated rebates for 444 unique branded drugs with prescriptions filled by 38 131 unique individuals, increased rebate sizes were associated with increased out-of-pocket costs for those with Medicare, commercial insurance, or no insurance. Associations between rebates and out-of-pocket costs were associated with simultaneous increases in list prices. Meaning These findings suggest that while drug manufacturers may increase list prices in order to offer larger rebates to insurers, such increases were associated with increased out-of-pocket costs, especially among individuals without insurance., Importance Over the past decade, branded prescription drug manufacturers have substantially increased list prices while offering larger rebate payments to health care insurers. Whereas larger rebates can partially offset increases in list prices for insurers, patient out-of-pocket costs may be directly associated with list prices for individuals without insurance and indirectly associated with list prices for individuals with insurance through deductibles or coinsurance. Objective To investigate the association between rebates and patient out-of-pocket costs and whether this association differs by coverage type (ie, Medicare, commercial, or uninsured) and before and after 2014. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) combined with pricing data for single-source branded drugs from SSR Health from 2007 through 2018. The study was conducted among a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized civilian US population. Included individuals were respondents to MEPS with at least 1 prescription for a single-source branded drug who were covered by Medicare or commercial insurance or were uninsured during an entire year. Data analyses were conducted from August 2019 through March 2021. Exposures Estimated rebate size. Main Outcomes and Measures Out-of-pocket costs per prescription were calculated, adjusting for year and drug. Results Among 38 131 individuals with at least 1 prescription, the mean age was 54 years (95% CI, 54 to 55 years), with 22 044 women (57.8%) and 29 086 White individuals (76.3%). The sample included 444 unique drugs with a survey-weighted total of 4.7 billion prescriptions. Estimated mean (SE) rebates increased from $34 ($1) per prescription in 2007 to $374 ($9) per prescription in 2018. The rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean out-of-pocket increases per branded prescription of $4 (95% CI, $4 to $4) from 2007 to 2013 and $11 (95% CI, $10 to $12) from 2014 to 2018. From 2014 to 2018, rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean increases in out-of-pocket costs per prescription of $13 (95% CI, $12 to $13) for individuals with Medicare, $6 (95% CI, $6 to $7) for individuals with commercial insurance, and $39 (95% CI, $34 to $44) for individuals without insurance. After adjusting for list prices, there was no association between rebates and out-of-pocket costs, with a change from 2014 to 2018 of −$0.01 (95% CI, −$0.04 to $0.02). Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that drug manufacturers may have provided larger rebates to insurers primarily by increasing list prices and that individuals without insurance had greater cost increases. The results emphasize the need for policy solutions that decouple list prices and out-of-pocket costs.

Objective To study whether the negative association between enrollment in high-deductible plans and health care utilization is driven by reverse moral hazard or favorable selection, by examining adults with and without a choice of plans. Data source 2011-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component data on nonelderly adults enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance. Study design Four types of plans were examined: high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs), low-deductible health plans (LDHPs), and no-deductible health plans (NDHPs). Multivariate logistic regressions of various measures of health care utilization were conducted to estimate the differences in utilization across plan types among those who had a choice of plans and those who did not. Principal findings Among adults with a choice of plans, HDHP enrollees had lower levels of utilization compared with those of the NDHP enrollees for any ambulatory visit, any specialist visit, and most preventive services. Among adults without any choice of plans, the differences between HDHP enrollees and NDHP enrollees were not statistically significant. Conclusions The differences between those with and without choice of plans in the relationship between HDHP enrollment and health care utilization might possibly be explained by favorable selection.

Purpose Among Australian women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer. The out-of-pocket cost to the patient is substantial. This study estimates the total patient co-payments for Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for women diagnosed with breast cancer and determined the distribution of these costs by Indigenous status, remoteness, and socioeconomic status. Methods Data on women diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland between 01 July 2011 and 30 June 2012 were obtained from the Queensland Cancer Registry and linked with hospital and Emergency Department Admissions, and MBS and PBS records for the 3 years post-diagnosis. The data were then weighted to be representative of the Australian population. The co-payment charged for MBS services and PBS prescriptions was summed. We modelled the mean co-payment per patient during each 6-month time period for MBS services and PBS prescriptions. Results A total of 3079 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland during the 12-month study period, representing 15,335 Australian women after weighting. In the first 3 years post-diagnosis, the median co-payment for MBS services was AU$ 748 (IQR, AU$87–2121; maximum AU$32,249), and for PBS prescriptions was AU$ 835 (IQR, AU$480–1289; maximum AU$5390). There were significant differences in the co-payments for MBS services and PBS prescriptions by Indigenous status and socioeconomic disadvantage, but none for remoteness. Conclusions Women incur high patient co-payments in the first 3 years post-diagnosis. These costs vary greatly by patient. Potential costs should be discussed with women throughout their treatment, to allow women greater choice in the most appropriate care for their situation.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are becoming more popular owing to their potential to curb rising health care costs. Relative to traditional health insurance plans, HDHPs involve higher out-of-pocket costs for consumers, which have been associated with lower utilization of health services. We focus specifically on the impact that HDHPs have on the use of preventive services. We critique the current evidence by discussing the benefits and drawbacks of the research designs used to examine this relationship. We also summarize the findings from the most methodologically sophisticated studies. We conclude that the balance of the evidence shows that HDHPs are reducing the use of some preventive service, especially screenings. However, it is not clear if HDHPs affect all preventive services. Additional research is needed to determine why variability in conclusions exists among studies. We describe an agenda for future research that can further inform public health decision makers on the impact of HDHPs on prevention.

We evaluate the presence and magnitude of moral hazard in Japan's public long-term care insurance (LTCI) market. Using monthly LTCI claim records from January 2006 to December 2015 linked to concurrent death records, we construct a sample by propensity score matching insured individuals who co-pay 10% of their fees to those with no required copayments, and we implement fixed-effect estimations. We find that a ten-percentage-point reduction in the copayment rate increases monthly costs by 10.2 thousand yen, corresponding to a price elasticity of about - 0.1. Insured individuals with no copayments tend to use more services and have more utilization days than those with copayments do. Furthermore, we find that insured individuals who die from cerebral (myocardial) infarction increase their service use more in response to a reduction in the copayment rate than those who die from senility do, indicating a positive association between ex-ante health risks and ex-post service use. We verify that a cost-sharing adjustment is a valid solution for soaring LTCI expenditures. These findings could provide broad implications for the rapidly aging world.

The effects of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment among vulnerable populations are unknown. We examined time to first breast cancer diagnostic testing, diagnosis, and chemotherapy among a group of women whose employers switched their insurance coverage from health plans with low deductibles ($500 or less) to plans with high deductibles ($1,000 or more) between 2004 and 2014. Primary subgroups of interest comprised 54,403 low-income and 76,776 high-income women continuously enrolled in low-deductible plans for a year and then up to four years in HDHPs. Matched controls had contemporaneous low-deductible enrollment. Low-income women in HDHPs experienced relative delays of 1.6 months to first breast imaging, 2.7 months to first biopsy, 6.6 months to incident early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and 8.7 months to first chemotherapy. High-income HDHP members had shorter delays that did not differ significantly from those of their low-income counterparts. HDHP members living in metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, predominantly white, and predominantly nonwhite areas also experienced delayed breast cancer care. Policies may be needed to reduce out-of-pocket spending obligations for breast cancer care.

Importance High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common and associated with decreased medication use in some adult populations. How children are affected is less certain. Objective To examine the association between HDHP enrollment and asthma controller medication use and exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants For this longitudinal cohort study with a difference-in-differences design, data were obtained from a large, national, commercial (and Medicare Advantage) administrative claims database between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014. Children aged 4 to 17 years and adults aged 18 to 64 years with persistent asthma who switched from traditional plans to HDHPs or remained in traditional plans (control group) by employer choice during a 24-month period were identified. A coarsened exact matching technique was used to balance the groups on characteristics including employer and enrollee propensity to have HDHPs. In most HDHPs, asthma medications were exempt from the deductible and subject to copayments. Statistical analyses were conducted from August 13, 2019, to January 19, 2021. Exposure Employer-mandated HDHP transition. Main Outcomes and Measures Thirty-day fill rates and adherence (based on proportion of days covered [PDC]) were measured for asthma controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], leukotriene inhibitors, and ICS long-acting β-agonists [ICS-LABAs]). Asthma exacerbations were measured by rates of oral corticosteroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department visits among controller medication users. Results The HDHP group included 7275 children (mean [SD] age, 10.8 [3.3] years; 4402 boys [60.5%]; and 5172 non-Hispanic White children [71.1%]) and 17 614 adults (mean [SD] age, 41.1 [13.4] years; 10 464 women [59.4%]; and 12 548 non-Hispanic White adults [71.2%]). The matched control group included 45 549 children and 114 141 adults. Compared with controls, children switching to HDHPs experienced significant absolute decreases in annual 30-day fills only for ICS-LABA medications (absolute change, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to −0.01). Adults switching to HDHPs did not have significant reductions in 30-day fills for any controllers. There were no statistically significant differences in PDC, oral steroid bursts, or asthma-related emergency department visits for children or adults. For the 9.9% of HDHP enrollees with health savings account–eligible HDHPs that subjected medications to the deductible, there was a significant absolute decrease in PDC for ICS-LABA compared with controls (−4.8%; 95% CI, −7.7% to −1.9%). Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study found that in a population where medications were exempt from the deductible for most enrollees, HDHP enrollment was associated with minimal or no reductions in controller medication use for children and adults and no change in asthma exacerbations. These findings suggest a potential benefit from exempting asthma medications from the deductible in HDHPs.

Background Our study estimated insurance payments and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses associated with discarded weight-based intravenous antineoplastic drugs for privately insured US adult patients with cancer. Methods We identified patients who received weight-based antineoplastic drugs from a 2017 MarketScan health risk assessment (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) linked to claims data. Using weight information in the health risk assessment, we derived the recommended dose and calculated the percentage of drugs discarded. We applied β-regression to determine factors associated with the discarded percentages. To compare patients with and without high-deductible plans, we employed a generalized linear model and a 2-part model to examine insurance payment and OOP expense, respectively. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of 27 350 claims for 58 weight-based antineoplastic drugs from 1970 patients, the median discarded percentage was 9.8% (mean [SD] = 12.8% [10.5%]). Aside from drug and tumor type, statistically significantly higher discarded percentages were found for patients in the lowest weight group (5.5% [95% confidence interval = 4.7% to 6.4%]; P Conclusions Private insurers incurred substantial financial burden from discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs. Although the OOP expenses of discarded drugs were modest for most privately insured patients with cancer, approximately 5% spent more than $400 on the discarded drugs. Policies designed to reduce drug waste from single-dose, weight-based antineoplastic drugs should evaluate their financial consequences for payers and patients.

Objective To provide a review of the impact of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) on the utilizations of services required for optimal management of diabetes and subsequent health outcomes. Methods Systematic literature review of studies published between January 1, 2000, and May 7, 2021, was conducted that examined the impact of HDHP on diabetes monitoring (eg, recommended laboratory and surveillance testing), routine care (eg, ambulatory appointments), medication management (eg, medication initiation, adherence), and acute health care utilization (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, incident complications). Results Of the 303 reviewed articles, 8 were relevant. These studies demonstrated that HDHPs lower spending at the expense of reduced high-value diabetes monitoring, routine care, and medication adherence, potentially contributing to the observed increases in acute health care utilization. Additionally, patient out-of-pocket costs for recommended screenings doubled, and total health care expenditures increased by 49.4% for HDHP enrollees compared with enrollees in traditional health plans. Reductions in disease monitoring and routine care and increases in acute health care utilization were greatest in lower-income patients. None of the studies examined the impact of HDHPs on access to diabetes self-management education, technology use, or glycemic control. Conclusion Although HDHPs reduce some health care utilization and costs, they appear to do so at the expense of limiting high-value care and medication adherence. Policymakers, providers, and payers should be more cognizant of the potential for negative consequences of HDHPs on patients’ health.

Most insurance policies include a deductible, so that a part of the claim is paid by the insured. In order to get full coverage of the claim, the insured has two options: purchase a Zero Deductible Insurance Policy or purchase an insurance policy with deductible together with Refundable Deductible Insurance. The objective of this paper is to analyze these two options and compare the premium paid by each. We definedif(P) as the difference between the premiums paid. This function depends on the parameters of the deductible applied, and we focus our attention on the sign of this difference and the calculation of the optimal deductible, that is, the values of the parameters of the deductible that allow us to obtain the greatest reduction in the premium.

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.

Objective To examine the effect of an employer-mandated switch to high-deductible health plans (HDHP) on emergency department (ED) low-value imaging. Data sources Claims data of a large national insurer between 2003 and 2014. Study design Difference-in-differences analysis with matched control groups. Data collection/extraction methods The primary outcome is low-value imaging during ED visits for syncope, headache, or low back pain. We included members aged 19-63 years whose employers offered only low-deductible (≤$500) plans for one (baseline) year and, in the next (follow-up) year, offered only HDHPs (≥$1000). Contemporaneous members whose employers offered only low-deductible plans for two consecutive years served as controls. The groups were matched by person and employer propensity for HDHP switch, employer size, baseline calendar year, and baseline year quarterly number of total and imaged ED visits for each condition. We modeled the visit-level probability of low-value imaging using multivariable logistic regression with member-clustered standard errors. We also calculated population level monthly cumulative ED visit rates and modeled their trends using generalized linear regression adjusting for serial autocorrelation. Principal findings After matching, we included 524 998 members in the HDHP group and 5 448 803 in the control group with a mean age of approximately 42 years and 48% female in both groups. On visit-level analyses, there were no significant differential changes in the probability of low-value imaging use in the HDHP and control groups. In population-level analyses, compared with control group members, members who switched to HDHPs experienced a relative decrease of 5.9% (95% CI - 10.3, -1.6) in ED visits for the study conditions and a relative decrease of 5.1% (95%CI -9.6, -0.6) in the subset of ED visits with low-value imaging. Conclusion Though HDHP switches decreased ED utilization, they had no significant effect on low-value imaging use after patients have decided to seek ED care.

Objective To examine the different levels of copayment assistance and treatment adherence among Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries with breast cancer in the U.S. Research design Propensity Score methodology was adopted to minimize potential selection bias from the nonrandom allocation of the treatment group (i.e., full Medicaid beneficiaries) and control group (i.e., Medicare Savings Programs [MSPs] beneficiaries). Longitudinal hierarchical model and Cox proportional-hazard model were adopted to examine patients’ adherence over their full five-year course of adjuvant hormone therapy. Results Our study cohort consisted of 1,133 dual eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer in years 2007 –mid 2009. About 80.5% of them received MSPs benefits, while the rest received full Medicaid benefits. On average for a standardized 30-day hormone therapy medication, full Medicaid beneficiaries spent $0.5-$2.0 and MSP beneficiaries spent $1.4-$4.8 in copayment. After adjusting for other factors, this copayment reduction wasn’t associated with a significantly better adherence. However, when the catastrophic coverage threshold was reached (copayments reduced to zero), significant improvement in adherence was found in both groups. Conclusions Our study found that small amount of cost-sharing reduction did not affect Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible patients’ medication treatment adherence, however, the elimination of cost-sharing (even a minimal amount) was associated with improved adherence. Future legislative and advocacy efforts should be paid on eliminating cost sharing for dual eligibles, and possibly even a broader group of financially vulnerable patients.

Key Points Question Are high-deductible health plans associated with an increased risk of major cardiovascular events? Finding This cohort study included 156 962 individuals with cardiovascular disease risk factors who experienced mandated enrollment in health insurance plans with high deductibles but relatively low medication costs, a common value-based feature. Members with high-deductible health plans did not have detectable increases in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with 1 467 758 members with low-deductible health plans. Meaning Among patients with cardiovascular disease risk factors in this study, enrollment in typical high-deductible health plans was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events during 4 follow-up years., Importance Most people with commercial health insurance in the US have high-deductible plans, but the association of such plans with major health outcomes is unknown. Objective To describe the association between enrollment in high-deductible health plans and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study examined matched groups before and after an insurance design change. Data were from a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set that included members enrolled between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014. The study group included 156 962 individuals with risk factors for cardiovascular disease who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans with typical value-based features after an employer-mandated switch. The matched control group included 1 467 758 individuals with the same risk factors who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Data were analyzed from December 2017 to March 2020. Exposures Employer-mandated transition to a high-deductible health plan. Main Outcomes and Measures Time to first major adverse cardiovascular event defined as myocardial infarction or stroke. Results The study group included 156 962 individuals and the control group included 1 467 758 individuals; the mean age of members was 53 years (SD: high-deductible group, 6.7 years; control group, 6.9 years), 47% were female, and approximately 48% lived in low-income neighborhoods. First major adverse cardiovascular events among high-deductible health plan members did not differ relative to controls at follow-up vs baseline (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Findings were similar among subgroups with diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.16) and with other cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81-1.07). Conclusions and Relevance Mandated enrollment in high-deductible health plans with typical value-based features was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events., This cohort study assesses whether an employer-mandated switch from a low-deductible health plan to high-deductible health plan is associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes among more than 1.5 million individuals in the US.

Background High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasing in prevalence as a cost control device for slowing health care cost growth by reducing nonessential medical service utilization. High cost-sharing associated with HDHPs can lead to significant financial distress and worse disease outcomes. We hypothesize that chronic disease patients are delaying or foregoing necessary medical care due to health care costs. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of IBD patients at risk for high medical service utilization with continuous enrollment in either an HDHP or THP from 2009 to 2016 were identified using the MarketScan database. Health care costs were compared between insurance plan groups by Kruskal-Wallis test. Temporal trends in office visits, colonoscopies, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations were evaluated using additive decomposition time series analysis. Results Of 605,862 patients with a diagnosis of IBD, we identified 13,052 eligible patients. Annual out-of-pocket costs were higher in the HDHP group (n = 524) than the THP group (n = 12,458) ($2870 vs $1,864; P < 0.001) without any difference in total health care expenses ($23,029 vs $23,794; P = 0.583). Enrollment in an HDHP influenced colonoscopy, ED visit, and hospitalization utilization timing. Colonoscopies peaked in the fourth quarter, ED visits peaked in the first quarter, and hospitalizations peaked in the third and fourth quarter. Conclusions High-deductible health plan enrollment does not change the cost of care; however, it shifts health care costs onto patients and changes the timing of the care they receive. High-deductible health plans are incentivizing delays in obtaining health care with a potential to cause worse disease outcomes and financial distress. Further evaluation is warranted.

Background Hospitals commonly provide a short‐term supply of free P2Y 12 inhibitors at discharge after myocardial infarction, but it is unclear if these programs improve medication persistence and outcomes. The ARTEMIS (Affordability and Real‐World Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness After Myocardial Infarction Study) trial randomized hospitals to usual care versus waived P2Y 12 inhibitor copayment costs for 1‐year post‐myocardial infarction. Whether the impact of this intervention differed between hospitals with and without pre‐existing medication assistance programs is unknown. Methods and Results In this post hoc analysis of the ARTEMIS trial, we examined the associations of pre‐study free medication programs and the randomized copayment voucher intervention with P2Y 12 inhibitor persistence (measured by pharmacy fills and patient report) and major adverse cardiovascular events using logistic regression models including a propensity score. Among 262 hospitals, 129 (49%) offered pre‐study free medication assistance. One‐year P2Y 12 inhibitor persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events risks were similar between patients treated at hospitals with and without free medication programs (adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI, 0.82–1.05 and hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI, 0.80–1.07, respectively). The randomized copayment voucher intervention improved persistence, assessed by pharmacy fills, in both hospitals with (53.6% versus 44.0%, adjusted odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI, 1.20–1.75) and without (59.0% versus 48.3%, adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95% CI, 1.25–1.70) free medication programs ( P interaction =0.71). Differences in patient‐reported persistence were not significant after adjustment. Conclusions While hospitals commonly report the ability to provide free short‐term P2Y 12 inhibitors, we did not find association of this with medication persistence or major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with insurance coverage for prescription medication enrolled in the ARTEMIS trial. An intervention that provided copayment assistance vouchers for 1 year was successful in improving medication persistence in hospitals with and without pre‐existing short‐term medication programs. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT02406677.

This cross-sectional study compares health care spending among high-deductible health plan vs traditional plan enrollees with substance use and mental health disorders.

Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians.To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities.Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017.Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills.The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service.Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill.In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

Objective Study occurrence and consequences of deductibles and medical debt among privately insured under the Affordable Care Act. Methods Analysis of 2012-2016 National Health Interview Survey data on privately insured adults younger than age 65 on the effect of deductibles on medical debt, deferred medical care, and office visits, by demographic characteristics, and treatable chronic diseases. Results Rates of medical debt and deferred care decreased. Medical debt is greater for those with any type of high deductible (HD) insurance, and among those more vulnerable (lower income, minority, treatable chronic diseases). Medical debt with HD's increased deferred needed medical care 6 fold and is highest for those with more treatable chronic diseases. Conclusion While medical debt and deferred care decreased for all privately insured, those HD-insured and vulnerable report higher medical debt rates markedly increasing deferred needed medical care. Highdeductible insurance risks adverse health and social consequences for those vulnerable.

To report outcomes with regard to clinical aspects and medical costs of adenotonsillectomy and tonsillectomy at a single institution before and after implementation of the Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG) payment system in Korea.We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated with adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy between July 2012 and June 2014. The Korean DRG payment system was applied to seven groups of specific diseases and surgeries including adenotonsillectomy and tonsillectomy from July 2013 at all hospitals in Korea. We divided patients into four groups according whether the fee-for-service (FFS) or DRG payment system was implemented and operation type (FFS-adenotonsillectomy (AT), DRG-AT, FFS-tonsillectomy (T), and DRG-T).A total of 1402 patients were included (485 FFS-AT, 490 DRG-AT, 203 FFS-T, and 223 DRG-T). The total medical cost of the DRG-AT group was significantly lower than that of the FFS-AT group (1191±404 vs. 1110±279 USD, P0.05). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or postoperative complications among groups.The Korean DRG system for adenotonsillectomy and tonsillectomy reduced medical costs and clinical outcomes were not significantly altered by the adoption of the DRG system.4.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHP) have become the predominant commercial health insurance arrangement in the United States. HDHPs require substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for most services but often exempt medications from high cost sharing. We examined effects of HDHPs on OOP costs and utilization of adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), which are fundamental care for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This controlled quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003–2012) from a large national health insurer. We included 986 women with incident early-stage breast cancer, age 25 to 64 years, insured by employers that mandated a transition from low-deductible (=$1000/year) coverage, and 3,479 propensity-score matched controls whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. We examined AHT utilization and OOP costs per person-year before and after the HDHP switch. RESULTS: At baseline, the OOP costs for AHT were $40.41 and $36.55 per person-year among the HDHP and control groups. After the HDHP switch, the OOP costs for AHT were $91.76 and $72.98 per person-year among the HDHP and control groups, respectively. AHT OOP costs increased among HDHP members relative to controls but the change was not significant (relative change: 13.72% [95% CI: −9.25%, 36.70%]). AHT use among HDHP members did not change compared to controls (relative change of 2.73% [95% CI: −14.01%, 19.48%]); the change in AI use was −11.94% (95% CI: −32.76%, 8.88%) and the change in tamoxifen use was 20.65% (95% CI: −8.01%, 49.32%). CONCLUSION: We did not detect significant changes in AHT use after the HDHP switch. Findings might be related to modest increases in overall AHT OOP costs, the availability of low-cost generic tamoxifen, and patient awareness that AHT can prolong life and health. Minimizing OOP cost increases for essential medications might represent a feasible approach for maintaining medication adherence among HDHP members with incident breast cancer.

Primary nonadherence (not filling a first prescription) is an important yet unstudied aspect of adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy.To estimate the rates of primary nonadherence to OACs and determine associated factors in real-world practice.This population-based retrospective cohort study set in the Valencia region of Spain (about 5 million inhabitants) included all patients with atrial fibrillation who were newly prescribed OACs during 2011-2014 (N = 18,715). Primary nonadherence was obtained by linking electronic prescription and dispensing data and assessed by type of OAC-vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Covariates were obtained from diverse databases, including electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess characteristics associated with primary nonadherence, adjusting for a propensity score to minimize confounding by indication.Primary nonadherence to OACs was 5.62% (VKA 4.29% vs. NOAC 10.81%; P0.001), with varying rates among specific drugs (acenocoumarol 4.2%, warfarin 10.9%, apixaban 5.0%, dabigatran 7.9%, and rivaroxaban 15.5%). After adjusting for potential confounders, the likelihood of not filling the first prescription was higher for NOAC patients than for VKA patients (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.41-3.15). High coinsurance in the older groups (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.47-4.69 for patients aged 66-75 years and OR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.58-5.76 for patients aged75 years); being a non-Spanish European (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.12-1.99); and having dementia (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.37-2.16) were positively associated with primary nonadherence. Electronic transmission of prescriptions (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96); liver disease (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99); and polypharmacy (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.50-0.70) were inversely associated with primary nonadherence.Overall, primary nonadherence to OACs was relatively low (5%). However, important differences were found between VKAs and NOACs. After adjustment, patients prescribed NOACs nearly tripled the likelihood of nonadherence compared with patients prescribed VKAs, which could negatively affect their effectiveness in clinical practice. Identified correlates were similar to those shown in the limited evidence for other medications.This work was partially supported by the 2013 Collaboration Agreement between the Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica (FISABIO) from the Valencia Ministry of Health and Boehringer Ingelheim, a nonconditioned program to conduct independent research in chronic health care, pharmacoepidemiology, and medical practice variation. Rodriguez-Bernal was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health, and cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (grant number RD12/0001/0005). The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the FISABIO Foundation, the Valencia Ministry of Health, or the study sponsors. The funding sources had no access to study data and did not participate in any way in the design or conduct of the study, data analysis, decisions regarding the dissemination of findings, the development of the manuscript, or its publication. Peiró has received fees for participation in scientific meetings and courses sponsored by Novartis and Ferrer International. In 2014, Sanfélix-Gimeno participated in an advisory meeting of Boehringer Ingelheim. García-Sempere is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Rodriguez-Bernal and Hurtado have no relationships relevant to the contents of this article to disclose. This work was previously submitted as an abstract (podium presentation) at the 31st International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Annual Conference; August 22-26, 2015; Boston, Massachusetts.

ObjectivesTo examine trends in high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrolment among members with diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with healthy members and compare out-of-pocket (OOP) and total spending for members with chronic conditions in HDHPs versus low deductible plans.DesignDescriptive study with time trends.SettingA large national commercial insurance database.Participants1.2 million members with diabetes, 4.5 million members with CVD (without diabetes) and 18 million healthy members (defined by a low comorbidity score) under the age of 65 years and insured between 2005 and 2013.Outcome measuresPercentage of members in an HDHP (ie, annual deductible ≥$1000) by year, annual mean OOP and total spending, adjusted for member sociodemographic and employer characteristics.ResultsEnrolment in HDHPs among members in all disease categories increased by 5 percentage points a year and was over 50% by 2013. On average, over the study period, HDHP enrolment among members with diabetes and CVD was 2.84 (95% CI: 2.78 to 2.90) and 2.02 (95% CI: 1.98 to 2.05) percentage points lower, respectively, than among healthy members. HDHP members with diabetes, CVD and low morbidity had higher annual OOP costs ($636 (95% CI: 630 to 642), $539 (95% CI: 537 to 542) and $113 (95% CI: 112 to 113)) and lower total costs (−$529 (95% CI: −597 to −461), −$364 (95% CI: −385 to −342) and −$79 (95% CI: −81 to −76)), respectively, than corresponding low deductible members when averaged over the study period. Members with chronic diseases had yearly OOP expenditures that were five to seven times higher than healthier members.ConclusionHigh HDHP enrolment coupled with the high OOP costs associated with HDHPs may be particularly detrimental to the financial well-being of people with diabetes and CVD, who have more healthcare needs than healthier populations.

IMPORTANCE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common and associated with decreased medication use in some adult populations. How children are affected is less certain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between HDHP enrollment and asthma controller medication use and exacerbations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this longitudinal cohort study with a difference-in-differences design, data were obtained from a large, national, commercial (and Medicare Advantage) administrative claims database between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014. Children aged 4 to 17 years and adults aged 18 to 64 years with persistent asthma who switched from traditional plans to HDHPs or remained in traditional plans (control group) by employer choice during a 24-month period were identified. A coarsened exact matching technique was used to balance the groups on characteristics including employer and enrollee propensity to have HDHPs. In most HDHPs, asthma medications were exempt from the deductible and subject to copayments. Statistical analyses were conducted from August 13, 2019, to January 19, 2021. EXPOSURE: Employer-mandated HDHP transition. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day fill rates and adherence (based on proportion of days covered [PDC]) were measured for asthma controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], leukotriene inhibitors, and ICS long-acting β-agonists [ICS-LABAs]). Asthma exacerbations were measured by rates of oral corticosteroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department visits among controller medication users. RESULTS: The HDHP group included 7275 children (mean [SD] age, 10.8 [3.3] years; 4402 boys [60.5%]; and 5172 non-Hispanic White children [71.1%]) and 17 614 adults (mean [SD] age, 41.1 [13.4] years; 10 464 women [59.4%]; and 12 548 non-Hispanic White adults [71.2%]). The matched control group included 45 549 children and 114 141 adults. Compared with controls, children switching to HDHPs experienced significant absolute decreases in annual 30-day fills only for ICS-LABA medications (absolute change, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to −0.01). Adults switching to HDHPs did not have significant reductions in 30-day fills for any controllers. There were no statistically significant differences in PDC, oral steroid bursts, or asthma-related emergency department visits for children or adults. For the 9.9% of HDHP enrollees with health savings account–eligible HDHPs that subjected medications to the deductible, there was a significant absolute decrease in PDC for ICS-LABA compared with controls (−4.8%; 95% CI, −7.7% to −1.9%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that in a population where medications were exempt from the deductible for most enrollees, HDHP enrollment was associated with minimal or no reductions in controller medication use for children and adults and no change in asthma exacerbations. These findings suggest a potential benefit from exempting asthma medications from the deductible in HDHPs.

Objectives To measure the size and timing of changes in utilization and costs for employees and dependents who had major access barriers to primary care removed, across an 8-year period (2007 to 2014). Study design and methods Retrospective observational study examining patterns of utilization and costs before and after the implementation of a worksite medical office in 2010. The worksite office offered convenient primary care services with no travel from work, essentially guaranteed same day access, and no co-pay. Trends in visit rates and costs were compared for an intervention fixed cohort group (employees and dependents) at the employer (n = 1211) with a control fixed cohort group (n = 542 162) for 6 types of visits (primary, urgent, emergency, inpatient, specialty, and other outpatient). Difference-in-differences methods assessed the significance of between-group changes in utilization and costs. Results The worksite medical office intervention group had an increase in primary care visits relative to the control group (+43% vs +4%, P

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE To contrast the effect of private insurance and deductibles (by size) on medical service use, health status, and medical debt for adult respondents with diabetes with low and high incomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Using the 2011–2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare demographic characteristics, medical service use, diabetes care, and health status among privately insured adult respondents with diabetes, aged 18–64 years (N = 1,461) by lower ($1,000/$2,400) (HD). The National Health Interview Survey 2012–2014 was used to analyze differences in medical debt and delayed/avoided needed care among adult respondents with diabetes (n = 4,058) by income. RESULTS Compared with privately insured respondents with diabetes with ND, privately insured lower-income respondents with diabetes with an LD report significant decreases in service use for primary care, checkups, and specialty visits (27%, 39%, and 77% lower, respectively), and respondents with an HD decrease use by 42%, 65%, and 86%, respectively. Higher-income respondents with an LD report significant decreases in specialty (28%) and emergency department (37%) visits. Diabetes care measures are similar by income and insurance; there were no changes in physical health status. Medical debt is similar by income, but deferred service use is two times greater for those indebted and with lower income. CONCLUSIONS Private insurance with a deductible substantially and problematically reduces medical service use for lower-income insured respondents with diabetes who have an HD; these patients are more likely to report forgoing needed medical services.