Association of Childbirth With Medical Debt.

We evaluated the association between childbirth and having medical debt in collections and examined differences by neighborhood socioeconomic status. Among a statewide cohort of commercially insured pregnant (n=14,560) and postpartum (n=12,157) adults, having medical debt in collections was more likely among postpartum individuals compared with pregnant individuals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.27-1.46) and those in lowest-income neighborhoods compared with all others (aOR 2.18, 95% CI 2.02-2.35). Postpartum individuals in lowest-income neighborhoods had the highest predicted probabilities of having medical debt in collections (28.9%, 95% CI 27.5-30.3%), followed by pregnant individuals in lowest-income neighborhoods (23.2%, 95% CI 22.0-24.4%), followed by all other postpartum and pregnant people (16.1%, 95% CI 15.4-16.8% and 12.5%, 95% CI 11.9-13.0%, respectively). Our findings suggest that current peripartum out-of-pocket costs are objectively more than many commercially insured families can afford, leading to medical debt. Policies to reduce maternal-infant health care spending among commercially insured individuals may mitigate financial hardship and improve birth equity.

Financial outcomes after pediatric critical illness among commercially insured families.

Critical illness results in subjective financial distress for families, but little is known about objective caregiver finances after a child's pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) hospitalization. Using statewide commercial insurance claims linked to cross-sectional commercial credit data, we identified caregivers of children with PICU hospitalizations in January-June 2020 and January-June 2021. Credit data included delinquent debt, debt in collections (medical and non-medical), low credit score (< 660), and a composite of any debt or poor credit and were measured in January 2021 for all caregivers. For the 2020 cohort ("post-PICU"), credit outcomes in January 2021 were measured at least 6 months following PICU hospitalization and reflect financial status after the hospitalization. For the 2021 cohort (comparison), financial outcomes were measured prior to their child's PICU hospitalization and therefore reflect pre-hospitalization financial status. We identified 2032 caregivers, 1017 post-PICU caregivers and 1015 comparison cohort caregivers, of which 1016 and 1014 were matched to credit data, respectively. Post-PICU caregivers had higher adjusted odds of having any delinquent debt [aOR 1.25; 95%CI 1.02-1.53; p = 0.03] and having a low credit score [aOR 1.29; 95%CI 1.06-1.58; p = 0.01]. However, there was no difference in the amount of delinquent debt or debt in collections among those with nonzero debt. Overall, 39.5% and 36.5% of post-PICU and comparator caregivers, respectively, had delinquent debt, debt in collections or poor credit. Many caregivers of critically ill children have financial debt or poor credit during hospitalization and post-discharge. However, caregivers may be at higher risk for poor financial status following their child's critical illness.

Preexisting Financial Hardship Among Caregivers of Hospitalized Children.

This cross-sectional study examines preexisting financial hardship among caregivers of hospitalized children.

Patient adverse financial outcomes before and after COVID-19 infection.

Adverse financial outcomes after COVID-19 infection and hospitalization have not been assessed with appropriate comparators to account for other financial disruptions of 2020-2021. Using credit report data from 132,109 commercially insured COVID-19 survivors, we compared the rates of adverse financial outcomes for two cohorts of individuals with credit outcomes measured before and after COVID-19 infection, using an interaction term between cohort and hospitalization to test whether adverse credit outcomes changed more for hospitalized than nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients. Covariates included age group, gender, and several area-level social determinants of health. Adverse financial outcomes were significantly more common after COVID-19 infection than before COVID-19 infection, with greater increases among those hospitalized with COVID-19 (5-8 percentage points) than among nonhospitalized patients (1-3 percentage points). Future work examining longitudinal financial outcomes before and after COVID-19 infection is needed to determine the causal mechanisms of this association to reduce financial hardship from COVID-19 and other conditions.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Non-Birth-Related Hospitalizations of Privately Insured US Children, 2017 to 2019.

Importance: Privately insured US children account for 40% of non-birth-related pediatric hospitalizations. However, there are no national data on the magnitude or correlates of out-of-pocket spending for these hospitalizations. Objective: To estimate out-of-pocket spending for non-birth-related hospitalizations among privately insured children and identify factors associated with this spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, which reports claims from 25 to 27 million privately insured enrollees annually. In the primary analysis, all non-birth-related hospitalizations of children 18 years and younger from 2017 through 2019 were included. In a secondary analysis focused on insurance benefit design, hospitalizations that could be linked to the IBM MarketScan Benefit Plan Design Database and were covered by plans with a family deductible and inpatient coinsurance requirements were analyzed. Main Outcomes and Measures: In the primary analysis, factors associated with out-of-pocket spending per hospitalization (sum of deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) were identified using a generalized linear model. In the secondary analysis, variation in out-of-pocket spending was assessed by level of deductible and inpatient coinsurance requirements. Results: Among 183 780 hospitalizations in the primary analysis, 93 186 (50.7%) were for female children, and the median (IQR) age of hospitalized children was 12 (4-16) years. A total of 145 108 hospitalizations (79.0%) were for children with a chronic condition and 44 282 (24.1%) were covered by a high-deductible health plan. Mean (SD) total spending per hospitalization was $28 425 ($74 715). Mean (SD) and median (IQR) out-of-pocket spending per hospitalization were $1313 ($1734) and $656 ($0-$2011), respectively. Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $3000 for 25 700 hospitalizations (14.0%). Factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included hospitalization in quarter 1 compared with quarter 4 (average marginal effect [AME], $637; 99% CI, $609-$665) and lack of chronic conditions compared with having a complex chronic condition (AME, $732; 99% CI, $696-$767). The secondary analysis included 72 165 hospitalizations. Among hospitalizations covered by the least generous plans (deductible of $3000 or more and coinsurance of 20% or more) and most generous plans (deductible less than $1000 and coinsurance of 1% to 19%), mean (SD) out-of-pocket spending was $1974 ($1999) and $826 ($798), respectively (AME, $1123; 99% CI, $1069-$1179). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, out-of-pocket spending for non-birth-related pediatric hospitalizations were substantial, especially when they occurred early in the year, involved children without chronic conditions, or were covered by plans with high cost-sharing requirements.

Dispensing of Ivermectin From Veterans Administration Pharmacies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study compares changes in ivermectin dispensing during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Veterans Administration (VA) and retail pharmacy settings and examines the association of the VA national formulary restriction with ivermectin dispensing.

Financial Outcomes After Traumatic Injury Among Working-Age US Adults With Commercial Insurance.

This cross-sectional study links insurance claims and consumer credit report data to evaluate the experience of financial distress in commercially insured adults after traumatic injury.

Out-of-pocket spending for health care after COVID-19 hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients report financial stress following hospitalization for COVID-19. Although many COVID-19 survivors require extensive care after discharge, the degree to which this care contributes to financial stress is unclear. Using national data, we assessed out-of-pocket spending during the 180 days after discharge among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, a national database of medical and pharmacy claims. METHODS: Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March and June 2020, we calculated median out-of-pocket spending during the 180 days after discharge. For comparison, we repeated this calculation among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. RESULTS: Of 7932 patients with COVID-19 included in analyses, 2061 (26.0%) had private insurance. Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients, median (25th-75th percentile) out-of-pocket spending after discharge was $287 ($59-$842) and $271 ($63-$783), respectively. Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2000 for 10.9% and 9.3% of these patients, respectively. Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients hospitalized for pneumonia, median (25th-75th percentile) out-of-pocket spending after discharge was $276 ($62-$836) and $570 ($181-$1466). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2000 for 12.1% and 17.2% of these patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients hospitalized for COVID-19, postdischarge care may not be a major source of financial stress. Although this is reassuring, our findings also suggest that a sizable minority of COVID-19 survivors have substantial out-of-pocket spending after discharge. These survivors could be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity if they also receive bills for the hospitalization owing to the expiration of insurer cost-sharing waivers. Insurers should consider this possibility when deciding whether to reinstate cost-sharing waivers for COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Association of Chronic Disease With Patient Financial Outcomes Among Commercially Insured Adults.

Importance: The bidirectional association between health and financial stability is increasingly recognized. Objective: To describe the association between chronic disease burden and patients' adverse financial outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed insurance claims data from January 2019 to January 2021 linked to commercial credit data in January 2021 for adults 21 years and older enrolled in a commercial preferred provider organization in Michigan. Exposures: Thirteen common chronic conditions (cancer, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, dementia, depression and anxiety, diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, serious mental illness, stroke, and substance use disorders). Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted probability of having medical debt in collections, nonmedical debt in collections, any delinquent debt, a low credit score, or recent bankruptcy, adjusted for age group and sex. Secondary outcomes included the amount of medical, nonmedical, and total debt among individuals with nonzero debt. Results: The study population included 2 854 481 adults (38.4% male, 43.3% female, 12.9% unknown sex, and 5.4% missing sex), 61.4% with no chronic conditions, 17.7% with 1 chronic condition, 14.8% with 2 to 3 chronic conditions, 5.4% with 4 to 6 chronic conditions, and 0.7% with 7 to 13 chronic conditions. Among the cohort, 9.6% had medical debt in collections, 8.3% had nonmedical debt in collections, 16.3% had delinquent debt, 19.3% had a low credit score, and 0.6% had recent bankruptcy. Among individuals with 0 vs 7 to 13 chronic conditions, the predicted probabilities of having any medical debt in collections (7.6% vs 32%), any nonmedical debt in collections (7.2% vs 24%), any delinquent debt (14% vs 43%), a low credit score (17% vs 47%) or recent bankruptcy (0.4% vs 1.7%) were all considerably higher for individuals with more chronic conditions and increased with each added chronic condition. Among individuals with medical debt in collections, the estimated amount increased with the number of chronic conditions ($784 for individuals with 0 conditions vs $1252 for individuals with 7-13 conditions) (all P < .001). In secondary analyses, results showed significant variation in the likelihood and amount of medical debt in collections across specific chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of commercially insured adults linked to patient credit report outcomes shows an association between increasing burden of chronic disease and adverse financial outcomes.

Trends in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with the quality of ambulatory care is unknown. Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are a well-studied measure of the quality of ambulatory care; however, they may also be associated with other patient-level and system-level factors. Objective: To describe trends in hospital admissions for ACSCs in the prepandemic period (March 2019 to February 2020) compared with the pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period. Exposure: COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). Main Outcomes and Measures: Adjusted relative risk (aRR) of ACSC hospitalizations and intensive care unit stays for ACSC hospitalizations and adjusted incidence rate ratio of the length of stay of ACSC hospitalizations in the prepandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) vs pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) periods, adjusted for patient age, sex, calendar month of admission, and county of residence. Results: The study population included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period, in which 51.3% of person-months (n = 6 547 231) were for female patients, with a relatively even age distribution between the ages of 24 and 64 years. The relative risk of having any ACSC hospitalization in the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76; P < .001). This decrease in risk was slightly larger in magnitude than the overall reduction in non-ACSC, non-COVID-19 hospitalization rates (aRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83; P < .001). Large reductions were found in the relative risk of respiratory-related ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001), with non-statistically significant reductions in diabetes-related ACSCs (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; P = .05) and a statistically significant reduction in all other ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85; P < .001). Among ACSC hospitalizations, no change was found in the percentage that included an intensive care unit stay (aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04; P = .64), and no change was found in the length of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a large commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in both non-ACSC and ACSC hospitalizations, with particularly large reductions seen in respiratory-related ACSCs. These reductions were likely due to many patient-level and health system-level factors associated with hospitalization rates. Further research into the causes and long-term outcomes associated with these reductions in ACSC admissions is needed to understand how the pandemic has affected the delivery of ambulatory and hospital care in the US.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

Importance: Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021. Objective: To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport). Results: Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

Financial Hardship Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the United States, 2013 to 2018.

Importance: Financial hardship affects health care access and health outcomes among peripartum women. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of financial hardship among peripartum women over time and by insurance type and income. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included peripartum women, defined as women aged 18 to 45 years who reported being currently pregnant or pregnant in the past 12 months, who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2018. Data were analyzed from January to May 2021. Exposures: Current pregnancy or recent pregnancy as well as insurance type and income. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three measures of financial hardship within the last year were evaluated: (1) unmet health care need due to cost (unmet need for medical care or delayed or deferred medical care due to cost); (2) health care unaffordability (worry about paying for potential medical bills or existing medical debt); and (3) general financial stress (worry about subsistence spending [eg, monthly bills, housing]). Results: The study cohort included 3509 peripartum women, weighted to represent 1 050 789 women (2018: an estimated 36 045 of 184 018 [19.6%] Hispanic, 39 017 [21.2%] Black, and 97 366 [52.9%] White), with a mean (SD) age of 29 (6) years. Overall, from 2013 to 2018, 24.2% (95% CI, 22.6%-26.0%) of peripartum women reported unmet health care need, 60.0% (95% CI, 58.0%-61.9%) reported health care unaffordability, and 54.0% (95% CI, 51.5%-56.5%) reported general financial stress. The prevalence of financial hardship outcomes did not substantially change between 2013 and 2018 (unmet health care need in 2013: 27.9% [95% CI, 24.4%-31.7%]; in 2018: 23.7% [95% CI, 19.5%-28.6%]; health care unaffordability in 2013: 65.7% [95% CI, 61.1%-70.0%]; in 2018: 58.8% [95% CI, 53.4%-64.0%]; general financial stress in 2013: 60.6% [95% CI, 55.2%-65.8%]; in 2018: 53.8% [95% CI, 47.8%-59.8%]). Women with private insurance had lower odds of unmet need (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87) but higher odds of health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36) compared with women with public insurance. Peripartum women with household incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level had higher odds of unmet need (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and unaffordable care (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.55) compared with those with household incomes 400% or more of federal poverty level. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that financial hardship among peripartum women in the United States was common from 2013 to 2018, including 24% of pregnant and postpartum women reporting unmet health care need and 60% reporting health care unaffordability. Women with private insurance and those living on lower incomes were more likely to experience unaffordable health care than women with pubic insurance and those with higher incomes, respectively. Targeted policy interventions are needed to improve health care affordability and promote overall economic security among peripartum women.

Provider experience and satisfaction with a novel 'virtual team rounding' program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: New inpatient virtual care models have proliferated in response to the challenges presented by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, few of these programs have yet been evaluated for acceptability and feasibility. OBJECTIVE: Assess feasibility and provider experience with the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP), a quality improvement project developed and rapidly scaled at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, MA, in response to the surge of COVID-19 patients in the spring of 2020. METHODS: We surveyed 777 inpatient providers and 41 providers who served as 'virtual rounders' regarding their experience with the program. Inpatient providers were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, whether the program saved them time, and if so, how much and their interest in working with a similar program in the future. Providers who had worked as virtual rounders were asked about their overall satisfaction with the program, the overall difficulty of the work and their interest in participating in a similar program in the future. RESULTS: We find that among both groups the program was well-received, with 72.5% of inpatient providers and 85.7% of virtual rounders reporting that they were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with their experience with the program. Among inpatient providers who worked with the program, two-thirds reported the program saved them time on a daily basis. Inpatient respondents who had worked with virtual rounders were more likely to say that they would be interested in working with the VTRP in the future compared with respondents who never worked with a virtual rounder (75.3 vs 52.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As the pandemic continues, rapidly implementing and studying virtual care delivery programs is crucial for hospitals and health systems. We demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a 'virtual rounding' program assisting inpatient providers. Future work should examine the impact of these programs on patient outcomes.

Out-of-Pocket Spending Within 90 Days of Discharge from COVID-19 Hospitalization.

INTRODUCTION: Millions of U.S. patients have been hospitalized for COVID-19. After discharge, these patients often have extensive health care needs, but out-of-pocket burden for this care is poorly described. We assessed out-of-pocket spending within 90 days of discharge from COVID-19 hospitalization among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: In May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus for Academics Database, a national de-identified claims database. Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March-June 2020, we calculated mean out-of-pocket spending for care within 90 days of discharge. For context, we repeated analyses for patients hospitalized for pneumonia. RESULTS: Among 1,465 COVID-19 patients included, 516 (35.2%) and 949 (64.8%) were covered by private insurance and Medicare Advantage plans. Among these patients, mean (SD) post-discharge out-of-pocket spending was $534 (1,045) and $680 (1,360); spending exceeded $2,000 for 7.0% and 10.3%. Compared with pneumonia patients, mean post-discharge out-of-pocket spending among COVID-19 patients was higher among the privately insured ($534 vs $445) and lower among Medicare Advantage patients ($680 vs $918). CONCLUSIONS: For the privately insured, post-discharge out-of-pocket spending was higher among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 than among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. The opposite was true for Medicare Advantage patients, potentially because insurer cost-sharing waivers for COVID-19 treatment covered the costs of some post-discharge care, such as COVID-19 readmissions. Nonetheless, given the high volume of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations to date, our findings suggest a large number of Americans have experienced substantial financial burden for post-discharge care.

Virtual Team Rounding: A Cross-Specialty Inpatient Care Staffing Program to Manage COVID-19 Surges.

PROBLEM: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic presented numerous challenges to inpatient care, including overtaxed inpatient medicine services, surges in patient censuses, disrupted patient care and educational activities for trainees, underused providers in certain specialties, and personal protective equipment shortages and new requirements for physical distancing. In March 2020, as the COVID-19 surge began, an interdisciplinary group of administrators, providers, and trainees at Brigham and Women's Hospital created an inpatient virtual staffing model called the Virtual Team Rounding Program (VTRP). APPROACH: The conceptual framework guiding VTRP development was rapid-cycle innovation. The VTRP was designed iteratively using feedback from residents, physician assistants, attendings, and administrators from March to June 2020. The VTRP trained and deployed a diverse set of providers across specialties as "virtual rounders" to support inpatient teams by joining and participating in rounds via videoconference and completing documentation tasks during and after rounds. The program was rapidly scaled up from March to June 2020. OUTCOMES: In a survey of inpatient providers at the end of the pilot phase, 10/10 (100%) respondents reported they were getting either "a lot" or "a little" benefit from the VTRP and did not find the addition of the virtual rounder burdensome. During the scaling phase, the program grew to support 24 teams. In a survey at the end of the contraction phase, 117/187 (62.6%) inpatient providers who worked with a virtual rounder felt the rounder saved them time. VTRP leadership collaboratively and iteratively developed best practices for challenges encountered during implementation. NEXT STEPS: Virtual rounding provides a valuable extension of inpatient teams to manage COVID-19 surges. Future work will quantitatively and qualitatively assess the impact of the VTRP on inpatient provider satisfaction and well-being, virtual rounders' experiences, and patient care outcomes.

ACA Mandate Led To Substantial Increase In Contraceptive Use Among Women Enrolled In High-Deductible Health Plans.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated that private health plans cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Previously, long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) were subject to deductibles, making them a higher-cost service for women with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs); however, the ACA mandate applied to HDHPs as well as traditional health plans. Using a national commercial claims database, we examined LARC use among continuously enrolled reproductive-age women between 2010 and 2017, comparing 9,014 women enrolled in HDHPs with 443,363 women enrolled in non-HDHPs. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences analysis, we found that pre-ACA HDHP enrollees had lower LARC initiation rates than women in non-HDHPs and that rates of LARC initiation increased by 35 percent more postmandate for women in HDHPs than for women in traditional plans. These findings suggest that the ACA had a particularly important impact for women in HDHPs, who faced higher pre-ACA out-of-pocket expenses for these contraceptive methods.