"You Have to Rob Peter to Pay Paul So Your Kid Can Breathe": Using Qualitative Methods to Characterize Trade-Offs and Economic Impact of Asthma Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses often focus narrowly on individual patients' health care use, while overlooking the growing economic burden of out-of-pocket costs for health care on other family medical and household needs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore intrafamilial trade-offs families make when paying for asthma care. RESEARCH DESIGN: In 2018, we conducted telephone interviews with 59 commercially insured adults who had asthma and/or had a child with asthma. We analyzed data qualitatively via thematic content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Our purposive sample included participants with high-deductible and no/low-deductible health plans. We recruited participants through a national asthma advocacy organization and a large nonprofit regional health plan. MEASURES: Our semistructured interview guide explored domains related to asthma adherence and cost burden, cost management strategies, and trade-offs. RESULTS: Participants reported that they tried to prioritize paying for asthma care, even at the expense of their family's overall financial well-being. When facing conflicting demands, participants described making trade-offs between asthma care and other health and nonmedical needs based on several criteria: (1) short-term needs versus longer term financial health; (2) needs of children over adults; (3) acuity of the condition; (4) effectiveness of treatment; and (5) availability of lower cost alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that cost-sharing for asthma care often has negative financial consequences for families that traditional, individually focused economic analyses are unlikely to capture. This work highlights the need for patient-centered research to evaluate the impact of health care costs at the family level, holistically measuring short-term and long-term family financial outcomes that extend beyond health care use alone.

"Pick a Plan and Roll the Dice": A qualitative study of consumer experiences selecting a health plan in the non-group market.

Background: For consumers without access to employer-sponsored or public insurance, health plan choices in the non-group (individual) insurance market that do not meet consumer needs have the potential for negative downstream implications for health and financial well-being. Objective: This qualitative interview study sought to understand consumers' experiences and challenges with choosing a non-group health plan, among those who later had negative experiences with the plan they chose. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 36 participants from a large regional health insurance carrier in three states who enrolled in non-group plans in 2017 (21 in Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans and 15 enrolled off-Marketplace). Participants were included if they reported negative experiences using their plan after enrollment, such as higher-than-expected medical costs. Interviews explored challenges choosing a plan; information needed for choosing; usefulness of available tools; and preferred format for interventions to improve plan choice experiences. We analyzed interview transcripts using thematic content analysis. Results: Study participants reported experiencing substantial challenges to choosing an insurance plan. Key barriers included understanding insurance terms, finding relevant information, and making comparisons across plans. Participants valued the ability to make comparisons across carriers when using the Marketplace websites but were less satisfied with customer service. Suggestions for improvement included greater standardization of plans and language and availability of customized one-on-one assistance. Conclusion: Findings from this study suggest that health plan selection in the non-group market presents challenges to consumers that may be addressed through enrollment assistance and improved presentation of information. Personalized assistance to find and choose coverage may lead to plan choices that better meet consumer needs and increase confidence choosing a plan in subsequent enrollment periods.

Leveraging Telemedicine to Reduce the Financial Burden of Asthma Care.

One of the most compelling arguments for telemedicine is its potential to increase health care access by making care more affordable for patients and families, including those affected by asthma. This goal is critically important in the United States, where the high cost of asthma care is associated with nonadherence to preventive care regimens and suboptimal health outcomes. In this clinical commentary review, we draw from the literature and our own research to identify opportunities for and challenges to leveraging telemedicine to reduce the financial burden of asthma care. Our interviews with 42 families affected by asthma during the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that under favorable circumstances, telemedicine can meaningfully reduce costs, including those related to transportation and missed work, while offering high-quality care. However, families also identified ways in which telemedicine can increase costs. For example, some reported reduced access to support services and material resources such as medication samples, which they relied on to manage costs. In this way, our findings underscore the need for careful care coordination and communication in telemedicine. We conclude by discussing the 4Rs, a structured communication approach designed to support cost conversations, increase care coordination, and help families reduce asthma care cost burden.

Neighborhood-Level Interventions to Improve Childhood Opportunity and Lift Children Out of Poverty.

Population health is associated with the socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods. There is considerable scientific and policy interest in community-level interventions to alleviate child poverty. Intergenerational poverty is associated with inequitable access to opportunities. Improving opportunity structures within neighborhoods may contribute to improved child health and development. Neighborhood-level efforts to alleviate poverty for all children require alignment of cross-sector efforts, community engagement, and multifactorial approaches that consider the role of people as well as place. We highlight several accessible tools and strategies that health practitioners can engage to improve regional and local systems that influence child opportunity. The Child Opportunity Index is a population-level surveillance tool to describe community-level resources and inequities in US metropolitan areas. The case studies reviewed outline strategies for creating higher opportunity neighborhoods for pediatricians interested in working across sectors to address the impact of neighborhood opportunity on child health and well-being.