The cost burden of metastatic prostate cancer in the US populations covered by employer-sponsored health insurance.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer-sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. METHODS: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009-2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer-free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person-year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074-$57,825 per person-year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person-year (95% CI, $42,022-$45,342 per person-year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person-year among men with employer-sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States.

The impact of inadequate health literacy on patient satisfaction, healthcare utilization, and expenditures among older adults.

Inadequate health literacy (HL) is associated with impaired healthcare choices leading to poor quality-of-care. Our primary purpose was to estimate the prevalence of inadequate HL among two populations of AARP® Medicare Supplement insureds: sicker and healthier populations; to identify characteristics of inadequate HL; and to describe the impact on patient satisfaction, preventive services, healthcare utilization, and expenditures. Surveys were mailed to insureds in 10 states. Multivariate regression models were used to identify characteristics and adjust outcomes. Among respondents (N = 7334), 23% and 16% of sicker and healthier insureds, respectively, indicated inadequate HL. Characteristics of inadequate HL included male gender, older age, more comorbidities, and lower education. Inadequate HL was associated with lower patient satisfaction, lower preventive service compliance, higher healthcare utilization and expenditures. Inadequate HL is more common among older adults in poorer health, further compromising their health outcomes; thus they may benefit from expanded educational or additional care coordination interventions.

Pricing regulations in individual health insurance: Evidence from Medigap.

I compare two pricing regulations that protect those with health conditions-"community rating," which requires insurers to charge uniform premiums, and "guaranteed renewal," which requires insurers to increase future premiums uniformly. Using individual-level Medigap data from 2006-2010, I compare individuals within 25 miles of borders between 3 community rating and 6 guaranteed renewal states. Relative to guaranteed renewal, community rating (with guaranteed issue) leads to a decrease in Medigap enrollment of 9.70 pp (29.7%), or 26.8-33.7% for low-spending conditions (diabetes, heart disease) and 21.9-29.9% for high-spending conditions (cancer, kidney disease); an increase in annual Medigap premiums of $276 (10.1%); a decrease in the likelihood of an earlier purchase of 7.99 pp (50.3%); and an increase in purchase delay of 1.08 years (17.0%).

Enrollment in Supplemental Insurance Coverage Among Medicare Beneficiaries by Race/Ethnicity.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine racial/ethnic differences in enrollment trends for supplemental insurance coverage among traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: We employed a retrospective cohort study design using the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. METHODS: We included two types of outcomes: 1) seven exclusive types of insurance coverage in a given year and 2) changes in insurance coverage in the next year for those with each of the seven exclusive types of insurance coverage. Our primary independent variable was race/ethnicity. We conducted regression while controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. We calculated the adjusted value of the outcome by race/ethnicity after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and health status characteristics. RESULTS: We found substantial racial/ethnic differences in supplemental insurance coverage among TM and MA beneficiaries. Compared to White beneficiaries, racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries had lower adjusted rates of enrollment in Medigap among TM beneficiaries and higher enrollment in Medicaid among both TM and MA beneficiaries. Trends in enrollment differed by supplemental insurance coverage, but an increasing trend in enrollment among MA beneficiaries without supplemental insurance coverage and MA beneficiaries with Medicaid was notable. Overall trends were consistent across all racial/ethnic groups. Finally, most beneficiaries were less likely to change insurance coverage in the next year, but a distinct phenomenon was observed among Black beneficiaries with the lowest rates of remaining in Medigap or MA only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate the minority Medicare beneficiaries may not have equitable access to supplemental insurance coverage.

Medicare Must Provide Additional Cost and Access Information to Enhance Decision Making Around Trade Offs Between Medicare Advantage and Medigap.

Health insurance coverage options are complicated and often leave Medicare beneficiaries, families, advocates, and brokers confused. Medicare should make small changes to its existing "Compare Coverage Options" tool that would enhance the public's understanding of the trade-offs between Medicare Advantage and supplemental Medigap with Fee-for-Service Medicare. For cost considerations, Medicare should include a projection of annual out-of-pocket (OOP) spending, whether an OOP cap applies and whether the ability to alter OOP for additional clinical benefit is offered. For access considerations, Medicare should provide access to information to educate the public on coverage and costs associated with dental, vision, and hearing benefits, network adequacy, prior authorization, and supplemental benefits. These changes will enhance transparency and decision making.

Disparities Among Those With Advance Directives in a Medicare Supplement Population.

Advance directives (ADs) detail patients' end-of-life (EOL) care preferences. We estimated AD prevalence rates among a Medicare Supplement population and determined characteristics associated with having ADs. We also estimated the impact of having an AD on EOL Medicare expenditures among respondents who later died. Survey respondents with an AD (72%) were significantly more likely to be female, older, nonminority, higher income and education, and have more comorbid conditions. Following regression adjustments, EOL expenditures were significantly lower for those with ADs in the last 3 months (-US$11 189) and 1 month (-US$6092) prior to death. Patients with ADs specifying their wishes for EOL care had significantly lower medical expenditures during the last few months of life. However, disparities exist among those with ADs that may warrant interventions.

The private health insurance choices of medicare beneficiaries: how much does price matter?

This article presents, critiques, and analyzes the influence of prices on insurance choices made by Medicare beneficiaries in the Medicare Advantage, Part D, and Medigap markets. We define price as health insurance premiums for the Medicare Advantage and Medigap markets, and total out-of-pocket costs (including premiums and cost sharing) for the Part D market. In Medicare Advantage and Part D, prices only partly explain insurance choices. Enrollment decisions also may be influenced by other factors such as the perceived quality of the higher-premium plans, better provider networks, lower cost-sharing for services, more generous benefits, and a preference for certain brand-name products. In contrast, the one study available on the Medigap market concludes that price appears to be associated with plan selection. This may be because Medigap benefits are fully standardized, making it easier for beneficiaries to compare alternative policies. The article concludes by discussing policy options available to Medicare.

MEDICAL EXPENDITURE RISK AND HOUSEHOLD PORTFOLIO CHOICE.

Medical expenses are an increasingly important contributor to household financial risk. We examine the effect of medical expenditure risk on the willingness of Medicare beneficiaries to hold risky assets. Using a discrete factor maximum likelihood method to address the endogeneity of insurance choices, we find that having a moderately protective Medigap or employer supplemental policy increases risky asset holding by 7.1 percentage points relative to those without supplemental coverage, while participation in a highly protective Medicare HMO increases risky asset holding by 13.0 percentage points. Our results highlight an important link between the availability of health insurance and financial behavior.