scholarly journals Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. e2134282
Author(s):  
Sue J. Fu ◽  
Liam Rose ◽  
Aaron J. Dawes ◽  
Lisa M. Knowlton ◽  
Kathryn J. Ruddy ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Michael Schoenbaum ◽  
Mark Spranca ◽  
Marc Elliott ◽  
Jay Bhattacharya ◽  
Pamela Farley Short

Many consumers are offered two or more employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and competition among health plans for subscribers is promoted as a mechanism for balancing health care costs and quality. Yet consumers may not receive the information necessary to make informed health plan choices. This study tests the effects on health plan choice of providing supplemental decision-support materials to inform consumers about expected health plan costs. Our main finding is that such information induces consumers to bear more risk, especially those in relatively good health. Thus our results suggest that working-age, privately insured consumers currently may be over-insuring for medical care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (S1) ◽  
pp. 31-32
Author(s):  
A. Galbraith ◽  
D. Ross‐Degnan ◽  
F. Zhang ◽  
A. Wu ◽  
A. Sinaiko ◽  
...  

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (22) ◽  
pp. e2604-e2613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Callaghan ◽  
Evan Reynolds ◽  
Mousumi Banerjee ◽  
Kevin A. Kerber ◽  
Lesli E. Skolarus ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo determine out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications in 5 common neurologic diseases.MethodsUtilizing a large, privately insured, health care claims database from 2004 to 2016, we captured out-of-pocket medication costs for patients seen by outpatient neurologists with multiple sclerosis (MS), peripheral neuropathy, epilepsy, dementia, and Parkinson disease (PD). We compared out-of-pocket costs for those in high-deductible health plans compared to traditional plans and explored cumulative out-of-pocket costs over the first 2 years after diagnosis across conditions with high- (MS) and low/medium-cost (epilepsy) medications.ResultsThe population consisted of 105,355 patients with MS, 314,530 with peripheral neuropathy, 281,073 with epilepsy, 120,720 with dementia, and 90,801 with PD. MS medications had the fastest rise in monthly out-of-pocket expenses (mean [SD] $15 [$23] in 2004, $309 [$593] in 2016) with minimal differences between medications. Out-of-pocket costs for brand name medications in the other conditions also rose considerably. Patients in high-deductible health plans incurred approximately twice the monthly out-of-pocket expense as compared to those not in these plans ($661 [$964] vs $246 [$472] in MS, $40 [$94] vs $18 [$46] in epilepsy in 2016). Cumulative 2-year out-of-pocket costs rose almost linearly over time in MS ($2,238 [$3,342]) and epilepsy ($230 [$443]).ConclusionsOut-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have increased considerably over the last 12 years, particularly for those in high-deductible health plans. Out-of-pocket costs vary widely both across and within conditions. To minimize patient financial burden, neurologists require access to precise cost information when making treatment decisions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S247-S248
Author(s):  
Elham Mahmoudi ◽  
Neil Kamdar

Abstract High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have shown potential to curb rising healthcare costs. We examined use and cost of hearing aids (HAs), comparing HDHPs with non-HDHPs. Using the 2009-2016 Truven Marketscan claims, we identified adults aged 50-64 who were diagnosed with hearing loss (HL) and whether they used HAs or not (n=1,247,113). We applied multivariable generalized linear models, adjusting for age, gender, hierarchical condition categories (HCCs). To control for potential selection bias, we applied an inverse propensity score weighting. Our outcomes of interest included: (1) utilization and (2) total and out-of-pocket costs of HAs (inflation adjusted to 2016 dollars), comparing HDHPs with non-HDHPs. Number of enrollees in HDHPs increased by 343%, from 1,717 in 2009 to 7,615, in 2016. The percentage of patients who used HA increased from 9.5% (95% CI:0.09-0.10) to 15% (95% CI:0.14-0.15) within non-HDHPs and from 5% (95% CI:0.04-0.06) to 16% (95% CI:0.15-0.17) within HDHPs. The average adjusted cost sharing and total cost of HAs increased by 74% ($85 to $148) and 52% ($589 to $894), respectively, among non-HDHPs; they increased by 80% ($173 to $312) and 91% ($589 to $1,126), respectively, among HDHPs. Average out-of-pocket costs for HAs in HDHPs were twice as much as in non-HDHPs (p <0.0001). Total and out-of-pocket costs for hearing aids were substantially higher among HDHPs compared with non-HDHPs. Many employers have started offering only HDHPs, leaving their employees with no other health insurance option. Higher cost sharing may worsen the existing socioeconomic disparities in access to HAs.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Frank Wharam ◽  
Jamie Wallace ◽  
Stephanie Argetsinger ◽  
Fang Zhang ◽  
Christine Y. Lu ◽  
...  

<b>Objective</b>: 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. <p><b>Research Design and Methods:</b> This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims dataset 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 (<u><</u>$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) 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. </p> <p><b>Results</b>: HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months, 95% confidence interval: [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 controls at follow up. </p> <p><b>Conclusions</b>: 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. </p>


2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.01052
Author(s):  
Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy ◽  
Shridevi Subramaniam ◽  
Sadia Khalil ◽  
Merel Kimman ◽  
Yek-Ching Kong ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To determine household spending patterns on complementary medicine following cancer and the financial impact in a setting with universal health coverage. METHODS: Country-specific data from a multinational prospective cohort study, Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology Study, comprising 1,249 cancer survivors were included. Household costs of complementary medicine (healthcare practices or products that are not considered as part of conventional medicine) throughout the first year after cancer diagnosis were measured using cost diaries. Study outcomes comprised (1) shares of household expenditures on complementary medicine from total out-of-pocket costs and health costs that were respectively incurred in relation to cancer, (2) incidence of financial catastrophe (out-of-pocket costs related to cancer ≥ 30% of annual household income), and (3) economic hardship (inability to pay for essential household items or services). RESULTS: One third of patients reported out-of-pocket household expenditures on complementary medicine in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis, accounting to 20% of the total out-of-pocket costs and 35% of the health costs. Risk of financial catastrophe was higher in households reporting out-of-pocket expenditures on complementary medicine (adjusted odds ratio: 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.86]). Corresponding odds ratio within patients from low-income households showed that they were substantially more vulnerable: 2.28 (95% CI, 1.41 to 3.68). Expenditures on complementary medicine were, however, not associated with economic hardship in the immediate year after cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In settings with universal health coverage, integration of subsidized evidence-based complementary medicine into mainstream cancer care may alleviate catastrophic expenditures. However, this must go hand in hand with interventions to reduce the use of nonevidence-based complementary therapies following cancer.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6021-6021
Author(s):  
Yu-Ning Wong ◽  
Brian Egleston ◽  
Kush Sachdeva ◽  
Olivia Hamilton ◽  
Naa Eghan ◽  
...  

6021 Background: When making treatment decisions, cancer patients (pts) must make trade-offs between efficacy, toxicity (tox) and cost. However, little is known about how individual characteristics influence these decisions, particularly as many face high out of pocket costs. Methods: We presented cancer pts with hypothetical scenarios that asked them to choose between 2 treatments of varying levels of efficacy, tox and cost. Each scenario included 9 choice pairs. Pts were given 2 of 3 scenarios described in the Table. Tox was also varied. Demographics, cost concerns and numeracy were assessed. Within each scenario, we used latent class methods to distinguish pt groups with discrete preferences. We then used regressions with group membership probabilities as covariates to identify associations. Results: We enrolled 400 pts. Median age was 61 years (range 27-90). 63% were female. 41% were college educated. 51% had an annual income ≥$60K. 25% were enrolled at a community hospital. 98% were insured. Within each of the 3 scenarios, we identified 3 pt classes with preferences for survival or aversion to high cost or toxicity. Across each of the scenarios, <6% of pts in the group averse to high cost chose the costlier treatment. >92% of pts in the group that favored survival chose the highest efficacy treatment. >65% of pts in the group with aversion to tox chose the lower tox treatment. Within each of the scenarios, pts in the group with preference for survival were more likely to have an income of >$60K (p<.05) and greater numeracy skills (p<.05). In scenarios 2 and 3, pts with concerns about treatment costs were more likely to be in the class that was averse to high cost (p<.05 for both). Conclusions: Even in hypothetical scenarios presented to insured pts, socioeconomic status was predictive of treatment choice. Higher income pts may be more likely to focus on survival when making decisions while those with greater cost concerns may be more likely to avoid costly treatment, regardless of survival or tox. This raises the possibility that health plans with greater cost-sharing may have the unintended consequence of increasing disparities in care. [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Frank Wharam ◽  
Jeanne Madden ◽  
Jamie Wallace ◽  
Fang Zhang ◽  
Robert LeCates ◽  
...  

10.36469/9888 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-62
Author(s):  
Aaron Galaznik ◽  
Katherine Cappell ◽  
Leslie Montejano ◽  
Geoffrey Makinson ◽  
Kelly H. Zou ◽  
...  

Background: Varenicline is a smoking cessation medication. Objectives: We analyzed patients’ out-of-pocket costs and utilization of and persistence with varenicline. Methods: De-identified claims data in the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database were analyzed retrospectively. Participants were all patients at least 18 years of age continuously enrolled in plans during 2009. Plans were categorized according to restriction (no coverage; prior authorization; smoking cessation program requirement; no restrictions) and out-of-pocket cost for a 30-day supply (low: &lt;US$12; medium: US$12–24.99; high: ≥US$25). The main outcome measures were utilization (defined as presence of a drug claim) and persistence (according to days’ supply and number of days to discontinuation). Generalized linear models and time-to-event analyses were conducted. Results: There were 142,251, 458,966 and 222,241 individuals in the low, medium and high out-of-pocket cohorts, respectively. The reference group for all comparisons was the cohort with no access restrictions and low out-of-pocket costs. Higher out-of-pocket cost was associated with a lower likelihood of varenicline initiation for both the prior authorization (odds ratio [OR]=0.10, p&lt;0.001) and smoking cessation program requirement (OR=0.19, p&lt;0.001) groups, versus the no restriction cohort. Within the no access restriction cohort, subjects in the high out-of-pocket group were half as likely to complete a varenicline course versus the low out-of-pocket group (OR=0.47; p&lt;0.002). Conversely, for the smoking cessation program requirement cohort, compared to the low out-of-pocket no restriction cohort, subjects who were in the high out-of-pocket group were more likely to complete a varenicline course (OR=0.70; p=0.13) than those in the low out-of-pocket group (OR=0.38; p=0.04). Conclusions: Higher varenicline out-of-pocket costs were generally associated with lower utilization of and persistence with treatment. These findings have implications for coverage policies in health plans and employers seeking to encourage smoking cessation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document