Health Insurance, Genetic Testing and Adverse Selection

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. MacMinn ◽  
P. L. Brockett ◽  
J. A. Raeburn
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Market Failure ◽  
Health Care Cost ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Background Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Privacy Rights

ABSTRACTThe implications of genetic testing information availability for society, medicine, employment, and individual privacy rights have generated much political debate, legislation and academic research. Part of this debate centres on the ethical and economic considerations resultant from this expanded knowledge, particularly for insurance practices. Within insurance economics, the possibility of adverse selection has been debated and the potential for a ban on an insurer's use of genetic testing has been studied with respect to whether or not such a ban might actually result in insurance market failure due to this adverse selection. Studies have examined the issue using expected loss cost (actuarial or ‘fair’) pricing models, and have not considered either equilibrium (supply and demand) price setting as is present in markets, or the potentially swamping effect of background health care risks facing the insured, having nothing to do with any particular genetic mutation. Here we construct a supply and demand function with both high and low risk individuals in the presence of background health care cost risks, and derive an equilibrium price and market composition to determine whether, if genetic information is allowed for individuals, but this same information is not shared with insurers: (1) is market failure inevitable? (it is not if the background risk is sufficiently high relative to potential genetic risk costs); (2) will equilibrium prices result in all low risk insured exiting the market? (not in the presence of significant background risk); and (3) how much would prices increase and market sales decrease if insurers do not have the same genetic information as the insured? (prices will increase, but not necessarily very much in the presence of background risk, and not as much as that previously estimated in the insurance literature).

Health care cost savings from Australian Poisons Information Centre advice for low risk exposure calls: SNAPSHOT 2

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (7) ◽  
pp. 752-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alanna Huynh ◽  
Rose Cairns ◽  
Jared A. Brown ◽  
Stephen Jan ◽  
Jeff Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Cost ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Exposure ◽  
Information Centre ◽  
Poisons Information

199: Health Care Cost Associated with Prostate Cancer, Androgen Deprivation Therapy, and Bone Complications

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 65-65
Author(s):  
Tracey L. Krupski ◽  
Kathleen A. Foley ◽  
Onur Baser ◽  
Stacey R. Long ◽  
David Macarios ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Health Care Cost ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Bone Complications

Information Visualization to Assist in the Audit of Supply and Demand for Exams at a Cooperative of Health Care Professionals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luiz Felipe de Camargo ◽  
Evandro Cesar Estevam ◽  
Luiz S.S. Baglie ◽  
Fabricio Quintanilha Baptista ◽  
Fabricio Baptista ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Information Visualization ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Supply And Demand

scholarly journals Ethical Considerations on Pediatric Genetic Testing Results in Electronic Health Records

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (05) ◽  
pp. 755-763
Author(s):  
Shibani Kanungo ◽  
Jayne Barr ◽  
Parker Crutchfield ◽  
Casey Fealko ◽  
Neelkamal Soares
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Genetic Information ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Electronic Health ◽  
Genetic Results

Abstract Background Advances in technology and access to expanded genetic testing have resulted in more children and adolescents receiving genetic testing for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. With increased adoption of the electronic health record (EHR), genetic testing is increasingly resulted in the EHR. However, this leads to challenges in both storage and disclosure of genetic results, particularly when parental results are combined with child genetic results. Privacy and Ethical Considerations Accidental disclosure and erroneous documentation of genetic results can occur due to the nature of their presentation in the EHR and documentation processes by clinicians. Genetic information is both sensitive and identifying, and requires a considered approach to both timing and extent of disclosure to families and access to clinicians. Methods This article uses an interdisciplinary approach to explore ethical issues surrounding privacy, confidentiality of genetic data, and access to genetic results by health care providers and family members, and provides suggestions in a stakeholder format for best practices on this topic for clinicians and informaticians. Suggestions are made for clinicians on documenting and accessing genetic information in the EHR, and on collaborating with genetics specialists and disclosure of genetic results to families. Additional considerations for families including ethics around results of adolescents and special scenarios for blended families and foster minors are also provided. Finally, administrators and informaticians are provided best practices on both institutional processes and EHR architecture, including security and access control, with emphasis on the minimum necessary paradigm and parent/patient engagement and control of the use and disclosure of data. Conclusion The authors hope that these best practices energize specialty societies to craft practice guidelines on genetic information management in the EHR with interdisciplinary input that addresses all stakeholder needs.

scholarly journals THU0548 THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS IN SPAIN. RESULTS OF THE SPANISH ATLAS 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 514.2-514
Author(s):  
M. Merino ◽  
O. Braçe ◽  
A. González ◽  
Á. Hidalgo-Vega ◽  
M. Garrido-Cumbrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Health Care Cost ◽  
Labour Productivity ◽  
General Health Questionnaire ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Productivity Losses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Care Costs

Background:Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) is a disease associated with a high number of comorbidities, chronic pain, functional disability, and resource consumption.Objectives:This study aimed to estimate the burden of disease for patients diagnosed with AS in Spain.Methods:Data from 578 unselected patients with AS were collected in 2016 for the Spanish Atlas of Axial Spondyloarthritis via an online survey. The estimated costs were: Direct Health Care Costs (borne by the National Health System, NHS) and Direct Non-Health Care Costs (borne by patients) were estimated with the bottom-up method, multiplying the resource consumption by the unit price of each resource. Indirect Costs (labour productivity losses) were estimated using the human capital method. Costs were compared between levels of disease activity using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score (<4 or low inflammation versus ≥4 or high inflammation) and risk of mental distress using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) score (<3 or low risk versus ≥3 or high risk).Results:The average annual cost per patient with AS in 2015 amounted to €11,462.3 (± 13,745.5) per patient. Direct Health Care Cost meant an annual average of €6,999.8 (± 9,216.8) per patient, to which an annual average of €611.3 (± 1,276.5) per patient associated with Direct Non-Health Care Cost borne by patients must be added. Pharmacological treatment accounted for the largest percentage of the costs borne by the NHS (64.6%), while for patients most of the cost was attributed to rehabilitative therapies and/or physical activity (91%). The average annual Indirect Costs derived from labour productivity losses were €3,851.2 (± 8,484.0) per patient, mainly associated to absenteeism. All categories showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between BASDAI groups (<4 vs ≥4) except for the Direct Non-Healthcare Cost, showing a progressive rise in cost from low to high inflammation. Regarding the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), all categories showed statistically significant differences between GHQ-12 (<3 vs ≥3), with higher costs associated with higher risk of poor mental health (Table 1).Table 1.Average annual costs per patient according to BASDAI and GHQ-12 groups (in Euros, 2015)NDirect Health CostsDirect Non-Health CostsIndirect CostsTotal CostBASDAI<4917,592.0*557.32,426.5*10,575.8*≥43769,706.9*768.05,104.8*15,579.7*Psychological distress (GHQ-12)<31468,146.8*493.6*3,927.2*12,567.6*≥32609,772.9*807.2*4,512.3*15,092.5*Total5786,999.8611.33,851.211,462.3* p <0.05Conclusion:Direct Health Care Costs, and those attributed to pharmacological treatment in particular, accounted for the largest component of the cost associated with AS. However, a significant proportion of the overall costs can be further attributed to labour productivity losses.Acknowledgments:Funded by Novartis Farmacéutica S.A.Disclosure of Interests:María Merino: None declared, Olta Braçe: None declared, Almudena González: None declared, Álvaro Hidalgo-Vega: None declared, Marco Garrido-Cumbrera: None declared, Jordi Gratacos-Masmitja Grant/research support from: a grant from Pfizzer to study implementation of multidisciplinary units to manage PSA in SPAIN, Consultant of: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly

scholarly journals The impact of high-risk and chronic opioid use among commercially insured endometriosis patients on health care resource utilization and costs in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 174550652096589
Author(s):  
Stephanie J Estes ◽  
Ahmed M Soliman ◽  
Marko Zivkovic ◽  
Divyan Chopra ◽  
Xuelian Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Resource Utilization ◽  
Health Care Resource ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Health Care Resource Utilization ◽  
Outpatient Visits ◽  
Chronic Opioid Use ◽  
Opioid Users

Objectives: Evaluate all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and costs among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients with high-risk versus low-risk opioid use or patients with chronic versus non-chronic opioid use. Methods: A retrospective analysis of IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims data from 2009 to 2018 was performed for females aged 18 to 49 with newly diagnosed endometriosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition code: 617.xx; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition code: N80.xx). Two sub-cohorts were identified: high-risk (⩾1 day with ⩾90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or ⩾1-day concomitant benzodiazepine use) or chronic opioid utilization (⩾90-day supply prescribed or ⩾10 opioid prescriptions). High-risk or chronic utilization was evaluated during the 12-month assessment period after the index date. Index date was the first opioid prescription within 12 months following endometriosis diagnosis. All outcomes were assessed over 12-month post-assessment period while adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Out of 61,019 patients identified, 18,239 had high-risk opioid use and 5001 chronic opioid use. Health care resource utilization drivers were outpatient visits and pharmacy fills, which were higher among high-risk versus low-risk patients (outpatient visits: 17.49 vs 15.51; pharmacy fills: 19.58 vs 16.88, p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users had a higher number of outpatient visits (19.53 vs 15.00, p < 0.0001) and pharmacy fills (23.18 vs 16.43, p < 0.0001) compared to non-chronic opioid users. High-risk opioid users had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to low-risk opioid users (US$16,377 vs US$13,153; p < 0.0001). Chronic opioid users also had significantly higher all-cause health care costs compared to non-chronic opioid users (US$20,930 vs US$12,272; p < 0.0001). Similar patterns were observed among endometriosis-related HCRU, except pharmacy fills among high-risk and chronic sub-cohorts. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates significantly higher all-cause and endometriosis-related health care resource utilization and total costs for high-risk opioid users compared to low-risk opioid users among newly diagnosed endometriosis patients over 1 year. Similar trends were observed for comparing chronic opioid users with non-chronic opioid users, except for endometriosis-related pharmacy fills and associated costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document