A primer on copay accumulators, copay maximizers, and alternative funding programs.

Insurer or self-insured employer's plans are increasingly using copay accumulator, copay maximizer, and alternative funding programs (AFPs) to reduce plan spending on high-priced prescriptions. These programs differ in their structure and impact on patient affordability but typically decrease the insurer or self-insured employer's financial responsibility for high-priced drugs and increase the complexity of specialty medication access for patients. The aim of this primer is to describe the structure of copay accumulator, copay maximizer, and AFPs to improve understanding of these cost-shifting strategies and help clinicians and patients navigate medication access and affordability issues to minimize treatment delays or non-initiation.

Cost-sharing and associated factors in the Peruvian private health care system.

BACKGROUND: The costs associated with healthcare are of critical importance to both decision-makers and users, given the limited resources allocated to the health sector. However, the available scientific evidence on healthcare costs in low- and middle-income countries, such as Peru, is scarce. In the Peruvian context, the health system is fragmented, and the private health insurance and its financing models have received less research attention. We aimed to analyse user cost-sharing and associated factors within the private healthcare system. METHODS: Our study was cross-sectional, using open data from the Electronic Transaction Model of Standardized Billing Data-TEDEF-SUSALUD, between 2021-2022. Our unit of analysis is the user's medical bills. We considered the total amount of cost-sharing, proportion of total payments as cost-sharing, and cost-sharing as a proportion of minimum salaries. We use a multiple regression model to perform the analyses. RESULTS: Our study included 5,286,556 health services provided to users of the private health insurance in Peru. We found a significant difference was observed in the cost-sharing for hospitalization-related services, with an average of 419.64 soles per day (95% CI: 413.44 to 425.85). Also, we identified that for hospitalization-related services per day is, on average, 0.41 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.41) minimum salaries more expensive than outpatient care, although cost-sharing per day of hospitalization represent on average only 14% of the total amount submitted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a detailed overview of cost-sharing in the private healthcare system in Peru and the factors associated with them. Policymakers can use the study's finding that higher cost-sharing for inpatient hospitalization compared to outpatient care in private insurance can create inequities in access to healthcare to design policies aimed at reducing these costs and promoting a more equitable and accessible healthcare system in Peru.

Health Outcome Changes in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes After a State-Level Insulin Copayment Cap.

Importance: Many insulin users ration doses due to high out-of-pocket costs. Starting January 2020 with Colorado, 25 states and the District of Columbia enacted laws that cap insulin copayments. Objective: To estimate the association of Colorado's $100 copayment cap with out-of-pocket spending, medication adherence, and health care services utilization for diabetes-related complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study using Colorado's All-Payer Claims Database, nonelderly insulin users with type 1 diabetes were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome changes were compared in the prepolicy and postpolicy period among individuals continuously enrolled in state-regulated and non-state-regulated plans using difference-in-differences regressions. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on individuals' prepolicy spending (low: never ≥$100 out-of-pocket vs high: ≥$100 out-of-pocket cost at least once). Data were analyzed from June 2023 to May 2024. Exposure: Enrollment in state-regulated health insurance plans subject to the copayment cap legislation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to basal and bolus insulin treatment was evaluated using the proportion of days covered measure, out-of-pocket spending reflected prescription cost for a 30-day supply, and health care utilization for diabetes-related complications was identified using primary diagnosis codes from medical claims data. Results: The panel included 1629 individuals with type 1 diabetes (39 096 person-months), of which 924 were male (56.7%), 540 (33.1%) had 1 or more comorbidities, and the mean (SD) age was 40.6 (15.9) years. Overall, the copayment cap was associated with out-of-pocket spending declines of $17.3 (95% CI, -$27.3 to -$7.3) for basal and $11.5 (95% CI, -$24.7 to $1.7) for bolus insulins and increases in adherence of 3.2 (95% CI, 0.0 to 6.5) percentage points for basal and 3.3 (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.4) percentage points for bolus insulins. Changes in adherence were associated with increases within the prepolicy high-spending group (basal, 9.9; 95% CI, 2.4 to 17.4 percentage points; bolus, 13.0; 95% CI, 5.1 to 20.9 percentage points). The policy was also associated with a mean reduction of -0.09 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.02) medical claims for diabetes-related complications per person per month among high spenders, a 30% decrease. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Colorado's insulin copayment cap among individuals with type 1 diabetes, the policy was associated with an overall decline in out-of-pocket spending, an increase in medication adherence, and a decline in claims for diabetes-related complications only among insulin users who spent more than $100 in the prepolicy period at least once.

Collaborative Care Cost-Sharing and Referral Rates in Colorado.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care integrates mental health treatment into primary care and has been shown effective. Yet even in states where its use has been encouraged, take-up remains low and there are potential financial barriers to care. OBJECTIVE: Describe patient out-of-pocket costs and variations in referral patterns for collaborative care in Colorado. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using administrative medical claims data to identify outpatient visits with collaborative care. For individuals with ≥1 visit, we measure spending and visits at the month level. Among physicians with billings for collaborative care, we measure prevalence of eligible patients with collaborative care utilization. SUBJECTS: Patients with Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or commercial health insurance in Colorado, 2018-2019. OUTCOMES: Out-of-pocket costs (enrollee payments to clinicians), total spending (insurer+enrollee payments to clinicians), percent of patients billed collaborative care. RESULTS: Median total spending (insurer+patient cost) was $48.32 (IQR: $41-$53). Median out-of-pocket cost per month in collaborative care was $8.35 per visit (IQR: $0-$10). Patients with commercial insurance paid the most per month (median: $15); patients with Medicare Advantage paid the least (median: $0). Among clinicians billing for collaborative care (n=193), a mean of 12 percent of eligible patients utilized collaborative care; family practice and advanced practice clinicians' patients utilized it most often. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care remains underused with fewer than 1 in 6 potentially eligible patients receiving care in this setting. Out-of-pocket costs varied, though were generally low; uncertainty about costs may contribute to low uptake.

Deductible double jeopardy: patients may pay more out of pocket when pregnancy crosses 2 years.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores the concern that annual high-deductible commercial insurance plan design may yield higher out-of-pocket costs when an episode of maternity care spans 2 years, exposing patients to their cost-sharing limits twice during their episode of care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of Health Care Cost Institute commercial claims. METHODS: The study sample comprises 1,379,300 deliveries among high-deductible health plan enrollees in years 2012 through 2021. Patients' mean cost sharing is calculated across all service types for 3 time periods: (1) delivery hospitalization, (2) maternity episode from 40 weeks prior to delivery hospitalization through 12 weeks after discharge, and (3) extended period spanning 3 years from January of the year before delivery through December of the year after delivery. RESULTS: For each of the 3 episode measurements, mean out-of-pocket spending is highest among those who deliver in January and declines in each subsequent month until August and September (the delivery months with most pregnancy and postpartum periods within the same year), then flattens for the remainder of the year. Mean cost sharing for the maternity episode was $6308 in January and $4998 in December, a difference of $1310. Patients delivering in January also had mean out-of-pocket costs $1491 greater for delivery hospitalization and $1005 greater over the 3-year period than patients delivering in December. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket spending is observed when patients face their cost-sharing limits twice within an episode of maternity care, and this difference persists even when evaluating 3 calendar years of patients' out-of-pocket spending.

Shingles Vaccination in Medicare Part D After Inflation Reduction Act Elimination of Cost Sharing.

This cross-sectional study uses data from retail pharmacies to examine shingles vaccine uptake among Medicare Part D beneficiaries following an IRA policy to eliminate cost sharing.

The impact of terminating cost-sharing reductions payments on health insurance plan choices.

The Trump administration terminated cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) payments to health insurers in 2017, while still required insurers to provide CSRs to eligible enrollees in the Marketplace. Marketplace administration data reveals that, in response to this termination, insurers raised premiums to compensate for their loss. Consequently, premium increases led to more advanced premium tax credits for enrollees in the Marketplace. To investigate the impact of CSRs payment termination on low-income consumer insurance plan choices, I leverage variations in state price regulations and employed a difference-in-differences design. In a robustness analysis, I utilized differences in county income distributions to examine the effects of the termination on insurance choices. The results indicate that after the termination, more low-income enrollees opted for cheaper bronze plans, and fewer chose silver plans. These results suggest that alterations in subsidy channels may inadvertently encourage low-income individuals to purchase less expensive health insurance plans, highlighting an unintended consequence of the termination of cost-sharing subsidies.

Association of copayments with healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between copayments and healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders. METHODS: This study used claims data (2020-2021) from a private insurer participating in Arkansas's Medicaid expansion. We compared service utilization and expenditures for enrollees in different Medicaid program structures with varying copayments. Enrollees with incomes above 100 % FPL (N = 10,240) had copayments for substance use treatment services while enrollees below 100 % FPL (N = 2478) did not. Demographic, diagnostic, utilization, and cost information came from claims and enrollment information. The study identified substance use and clinical comorbidities using claims from July through December 2020 and evaluated utilization and costs in 2021. Generalized linear models (GLM) estimated outcomes using single equation and two-part modeling. A gamma distribution and log link were used to model expenditures, and negative binomial models were used to model utilization. A falsification test comparing behavioral health telemedicine utilization, which had no cost sharing in either group, assessed whether differences in the groups may be responsible for observed findings. RESULTS: Substance use enrollees with copayments were less likely to have a substance use or behavioral health outpatient (-0.04 PP adjusted; p = 0.001) or inpatient visit (-0.04 PP; p = 0.001) relative to their counterparts without copayments, equal to a 17 % reduction in substance use or behavioral health outpatient services and a nearly 50 % reduction in inpatient visits. The reduced utilization among enrollees with a copayment was associated with a significant reduction in total expenses ($954; p = 0.001) and expenses related to substance use or behavioral health services ($532; p = 0.001). For enrollees with at least one behavioral health visit, there were no differences in outpatient or inpatient utilization or expenditures between enrollees with and without copayments. Copayments had no association with non-behavioral health or telemedicine services where neither group had cost sharing. CONCLUSION: Copayments serve as an initial barrier to substance use treatment, but are not associated with the amount of healthcare utilization conditional on using services. Policy makers and insurers should consider the role of copayments for treatment services among enrollees with substance use disorders in Medicaid programs.

Insulin Fills by Medicare Enrollees and Out-of-Pocket Caps Under the Inflation Reduction Act.

This study uses data from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit to assess the association of the Inflation Reduction Act's cap on cost sharing with insulin fills by Medicare beneficiaries.

The Increasing Adoption of Out-of-Pocket Cost Caps: Benefits, Unintended Consequences, and Policy Opportunities.

This Viewpoint discusses potential benefits and unintended consequences of out-of-pocket cost caps in Medicare and the employer-sponsored health insurance market and provides suggested policy opportunities to address shortcomings.

The costs and inequities of precision medicine for patients with prostate cancer: A call to action.

Financial toxicity is a growing problem in the delivery of cancer care and contributes to inequities in outcomes across the cancer care continuum. Racial/ethnic inequities in prostate cancer, the most common cancer diagnosed in men, are well described, and threaten to widen in the era of precision oncology given the numerous structural barriers to accessing novel diagnostic studies and treatments, particularly for Black men. Gaps in insurance coverage and cost sharing are 2 such structural barriers that can perpetuate inequities in screening, diagnostic workup, guideline-concordant treatment, symptom management, survivorship, and access to clinical trials. Mitigating these barriers will be key to achieving equity in prostate cancer care, and will require a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, health systems, and individual providers. This narrative review will describe the current state of financial toxicity in prostate cancer care and its role in perpetuating racial inequities in the era of precision oncology.

Does Insulin Price Reduction Suggest a Path Forward for Lowering Drug Costs?

This Viewpoint investigates whether political pressure such as that used to decrease insulin pricing is a feasible method of lowering the cost of other drugs.

Cost sharing: implications of a well-intended benefits strategy.

DISCLOSURES: The thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only and are not the thoughts and opinions of any current or former employer of the author. Nor is this publication made by, on behalf of, or endorsed or approved by any current or former employer of the author.

Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.

OBJECTIVE: Many employers have introduced rewards programs as a new benefit design in which employees are paid $25-$500 if they receive care from lower-priced providers. Our goal was to assess the impact of the rewards program on procedure prices and choice of provider and how these outcomes vary by length of exposure to the program and patient population. STUDY SETTING: A total of 87 employers from across the nation with 563,000 employees and dependents who have introduced the rewards program in 2017 and 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-difference analysis comparing changes in average prices and market share of lower-priced providers among employers who introduced the reward program to those that did not. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We used claims data for 3.9 million enrollees of a large health plan. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Introduction of the program was associated with a 1.3% reduction in prices during the first year and a 3.7% reduction in the second year of access. Use of the program and price reductions are concentrated among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, for which 30% of patients engaged with the program, 5.6% of patients received an incentive payment in the first year, and 7.8% received an incentive payment in the second year. MRI prices were 3.7% and 6.5% lower in the first and second years, respectively. We did not observe differential impacts related to enrollment in a consumer-directed health plan or the degree of market-level price variation. We also did not observe a change in utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of financial incentives to reward patients from receiving care from lower-priced providers is associated with modest price reductions, and savings are concentrated among MRI services.

Accuracy of Physician Estimates of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medication Filling.

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.

Patient administrative burden in the US health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of patient administrative tasks and whether they are associated with delayed and/or foregone care. DATA SOURCE: March 2019 Health Reform Monitoring Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We assess the prevalence of five common patient administrative tasks-scheduling, obtaining information, prior authorizations, resolving billing issues, and resolving premium problems-and associated administrative burden, defined as delayed and/or foregone care. Using multivariate logistic models, we examined the association of demographic characteristics with odds of doing tasks and experiencing burdens. Our outcome variables were five common types of administrative tasks as well as composite measures of any task, any delayed care, any foregone care, and any burden (combined delayed/foregone), respectively. DATA COLLECTION: We developed and administered survey questions to a nationally representative sample of insured, nonelderly adults (n = 4155). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The survey completion rate was 62%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported performing at least one administrative task in the past year. About one in three task-doers, or 24.4% of respondents overall, reported delayed or foregone care due to an administrative task: Adjusted for demographics, disability status had the strongest association with administrative tasks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.91, p < 0.001) and burden (adjusted OR 1.66, p < 0.001). Being a woman was associated with doing administrative tasks (adjusted OR 2.19, p < 0.001). Being a college graduate was associated with performing an administrative task (adjusted OR 2.79, p < 0.001), while higher income was associated with fewer subsequent burdens (adjusted OR 0.55, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently do administrative tasks that can create burdens resulting in delayed/foregone care. The prevalence of delayed/foregone care due to administrative tasks is comparable to similar estimates of cost-related barriers to care. Demographic disparities in burden warrant further attention. Enhancing measurement of patient administrative work and associated burdens may identify opportunities for assessing quality, value, and patient experience.

Cost-sharing With Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: Obligations and Propensity to Pay.

BACKGROUND: Six states expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have obtained waivers to incorporate cost-sharing. OBJECTIVE: We describe the magnitude and distribution of cost-sharing imposed by the Healthy Michigan Plan and enrollees' propensity to pay. RESEARCH DESIGN: Enrollees are followed for at least 18 months (6-mo baseline period for utilization and spending before receipt of first cost-sharing statement; ≥12 mo follow-up thereafter to ascertain obligations and payments). Analyses stratified by income, comparing enrollees with income less than Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who faced only utilization-based copayments and those greater than or equal to FPL who also faced premium contributions. SUBJECTS: A total of 158,322 enrollees aged 22-62 who initially enrolled during the first year of the program and remained continuously enrolled ≥18 months. RESULTS: Among those enrolled ≥18 months, 51.0% faced cost-sharing. Average quarterly invoices were $4.85 ($11.11 for those with positive invoices) for income less than FPL and $26.71 ($30.93 for those with positive invoices) for incomes greater than or equal to FPL. About half of enrollees with obligations made at least partial payments, with payments being more likely among those >100% FPL. Payment of the full obligation was highest in the initial 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Many payment obligations go uncollected, suggesting that in a system without the threat of disenrollment, the impacts of cost-sharing may be muted. Similarly, the ability of cost-sharing to defray the program's budgetary impact may also be less than anticipated.

Effects of inadequate coverage on healthcare utilization: A regression discontinuity analysis.

ABSTRACT: To examine the impact of inadequate health insurance coverage on physician utilization among older adults using a novel quasi-experimental design in the time period following the elimination of cost sharing for most preventative services under the US Affordable Care Act of 2010.The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full year consolidated data files for the period 2010 to 2017 were used to construct a pooled cross-sectional dataset of adults aged 60 to 70. Regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the impact of transitioning between non-Medicare and Medicare plans on use of routine office-based physician visits and emergency room visits.For the overall population, gaining access to Medicare at age 65 is associated with a higher propensity to make routine office-based visits (2.94 percentage points [pp]; P < .01) and lower out-of-pocket costs (-23.86 pp; P < .01) Similarly, disenrollment from non-Medicare insurance plans at age 66 was associated with more routine office-based visits (3.01 pp; P < .01) and less out-of-pocket costs (-8.09 pp; P < .10). However, some minority groups reported no changes in visits and out-of-pocket costs or reported an increased propensity to make emergency department visits.Enrollment into Medicare from non-Medicare insurance plans was associated with increased use of routine office-based services and lower out-of-pocket costs. However, some subgroups reported no changes in routine visits or costs or an increased propensity to make emergency department visits. These findings suggest other nonfinancial, structural barriers may exist that limit patient's ability to access routine services.