Two-year trends in cancer screening among low socioeconomic status women in an HMO-based high-deductible health plan.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is often fully covered under high-deductible health plans (HDHP), but low socioeconomic status (SES) women still might forego testing. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of switching to a HDHP on breast and cervical cancer screening among women of low SES. DESIGN: Pre-post with comparison group. PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand one hundred and eighty-eight health plan members enrolled for one year before and up to two years after an employer-mandated switch from a traditional HMO to an HMO-based HDHP, compared with 9418 propensity score matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. Both groups had low outpatient copayments. High-deductible members had full coverage of mammography and Pap smears, but $500 to $2000 individual deductibles for most other services. HMO members had full coverage of cancer screening and low copayments for other services without any deductible. We stratified analyses by SES. INTERVENTION: Transition to a HDHP. MAIN MEASURES: Annual breast and cervical cancer screening rates; rates of annual preventive outpatient visits. KEY RESULTS: In follow-up years 1 and 2, low SES HDHP members experienced no statistically detectable changes in rates of breast cancer screening (ratio of change, 1.14, 95 % CI, [0.93,1.40] and 1.05, [0.80,1.37], respectively) or preventive visits (difference-in-differences, +1.9 %, [-11.9 %,+17.7 %] and +10.1 %, [-9.4 %,+33.7 %], respectively) relative to HMO counterparts. Similarly, among low SES HDHP members eligible for cervical cancer screening, no significant changes occurred in either screening rates (1.01, [0.86,1.20] and 1.08, [0.86,1.35]) or preventive visits (+0.2 %, [-11.4 %,+13.3 %] and -1.4 %, [-18.1,+18.6]). Patterns were statistically similar for high SES members. CONCLUSION: During two follow-up years, transition to an HMO-based HDHP with coverage of primary care visits and cancer screening did not lead to differentially lower rates of breast and cervical cancer screening or preventive visits for low SES women. Generalizability is limited to commercially insured women transitioning to HDHPs with low cost-sharing for cancer screening and primary care visits, a common design.

Cost-related medication nonadherence and cost-saving strategies used by elderly Medicare cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to compare cost-related medication nonadherence among elderly Medicare enrollees with and without cancer and to describe the strategies cancer survivors used to offset the costs of medications. METHODS: Using the 2005 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and Medicare claims, we compared self-reported cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), spending less on basic needs to afford medicines, and cost reduction strategies among elderly beneficiaries with and without cancer. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to characterize and compare these populations. RESULTS: In a nationally representative sample of 9,818 non-institutionalized elderly Medicare enrollees, 1,392 (14%) were classified as cancer survivors based on Medicare claims. Cancer survivors were older, more highly educated, more likely to be male and non-Hispanic, and more likely to have multiple comorbidities, poorer health status, and employer-paid medication coverage. While 10% of cancer survivors and 11% without cancer reported CRN, about 6% and 9% (p = 0.004) of those with and without cancer, respectively, reported spending less on basic needs to offset the costs of medications. Cancer survivors who reported CRN (n = 143) had lower income (62.2% versus 48.6%, p = 0.11) and were more likely to be African-American (13.0% versus 6.4%, p = 0.033) and have non-employer-based medication insurance (p = 0.002) compared to those who did not report CRN. In adjusted analyses, CRN among the two groups was similar, but with some subgroup differences noted by gender and cancer type. Use of cost reduction strategies was mostly similar among cancer survivors and those without cancer. CONCLUSION: Cost-related medication nonadherence medication is common among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, but appears to be similar among those with and without cancer.

Two-year trends in colorectal cancer screening after switch to a high-deductible health plan.

BACKGROUND: Recent health reform laws might accelerate high-deductible health plan (HDHP) growth. The impact of HDHPs on long-term colorectal cancer screening rates and low socioeconomic status (SES) members is unknown. METHODS: We studied colorectal cancer screening rates among 1306 Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) members for 1 year before and 2 years after an employer-mandated switch to HDHPs, compared with 1306 propensity score-matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. HDHP members had full coverage of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) but colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema were subject to $500 to $2000 annual deductibles. HMO members had full coverage of these tests. We used generalized estimating equations to adjust screening rates for member characteristics. We stratified analyses by SES. RESULTS: Overall colorectal cancer screening rates in the HDHP group relative to the control group trended down from baseline to the first and second follow-up years [ratios of change, 0.88, (95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.06) and 0.83, (0.69 to 1.00), respectively]. Low SES HDHP members experienced a statistically significant relative decrease in colonoscopy in both follow-up years [0.65, (0.48 to 0.88) and 0.59, (0.42 to 0.84), respectively] and a trend toward increased FOBT [1.26, (0.92 to 1.72) and 1.30, (0.95 to 1.77), respectively] to maintain stable overall colorectal cancer screening rates [1.01, (0.77 to 1.32) and 0.93, (0.71 to 1.22), respectively]. High SES members experienced less pronounced decrease in colonoscopy [0.89, (0.67 to 1.18) and 0.87, (0.62 to 1.21), respectively] but FOBT rates did not increase [0.83, (0.62 to 1.11 and 0.81), (0.60 to 1.11), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to a HDHP was associated with a downward trend in overall colorectal cancer screening rates after 2 years. Low SES HDHP members maintained stable rates, but substituted FOBT for colonoscopy and other tests now more widely recommended. Further research should investigate whether such reduced adherence to screening guidelines adversely affects health outcomes.

High-deductible health plans and costs and utilization of maternity care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of switching from an HMO to a high-deductible health plan on the costs and utilization of maternity care. STUDY DESIGN: Pre­post design, with a control group. METHODS: We compared 229 women who delivered babies before or after their employers mandated a switch from HMO coverage to a high-deductible health plan, with a control group of 2180 matched women who delivered babies while their employers remained in an HMO plan. Administrative claims from a large Massachusetts-based health insurance program were used in a difference-in-differences regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean out-of-pocket maternity care costs for high-deductible group members increased from $356 for women who delivered before the insurance transition (n = 86) to $942 for women who delivered after the transition (n = 143), compared with a change from $262 (n = 711) to $282 (n = 1569) for HMO members, a relative increase of 106% (P <.001) for high-deductible members. Delivery after transition to a high-deductible plan was not associated with changes in the odds of receiving early prenatal care (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-3.19), recommended prenatal visits (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.89-3.02), or postpartum care (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from an HMO to a high-deductible plan with exemptions for routine care increased out-of-pocket member costs for maternity care, but had no apparent adverse impacts on receipt of recommended prenatal and postpartum care.

Impact of prior authorization on the use and costs of lipid-lowering medications among Michigan and Indiana dual enrollees in Medicaid and Medicare: results of a longitudinal, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Some Medicaid programs have adopted prior-authorization (PA) policies that require prescribers to request approval from Medicaid before prescribing drugs not included on a preferred drug list. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association between PA policies for lipid-lowering agents in Michigan and Indiana and the use and cost of this drug class among dual enrollees in Medicare and Medicaid. METHODS: Michigan and Indiana claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were assessed. Michigan Medicaid instituted a PA requirement for several lipid-lowering medications in March 2002; Indiana implemented a PA policy for drugs in this class in September 2002. Although the PA policies affected some statins, they predominantly targeted second-line treatments, including bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, and niacins. Individuals aged ≥18 years who were continuously dually enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid from July 2000 through September 2003 were included in this longitudinal, population-based study, which included a 20-month observation period before the implementation of PA in Michigan and a 12-month follow-up period after the Indiana PA policy was initiated. Interrupted time series analysis was used to examine changes in prescription rates and pharmacy costs for lipid-lowering drugs before and after policy implementation. RESULTS: A total of 38,684 dual enrollees in Michigan and 29,463 in Indiana were included. Slightly more than half of the cohort were female (Michigan, 53.3% [20,614/38,684]; Indiana, 56.3% [16,595/29,463]); nearly half were aged 45 to 64 years (Michigan, 43.7% [16,921/38,684]; Indiana, 45.2% [13,321/29,463]). Most subjects were white (Michigan, 77.4% [29,957/38,684]; Indiana: 84.9% [25,022/29,463]). The PA policy was associated with an immediate 58% reduction in prescriptions for nonpreferred medications in Michigan and a corresponding increase in prescriptions for preferred agents. However, the PA policy had no apparent effect in Indiana, where there had been little use of nonpreferred medications before the policy was implemented (3.3%). The policies were associated with an immediate reduction of $24,548 in prescription expenditures in Michigan and an immediate reduction of $16,070 in Indiana. CONCLUSIONS: The PA policy was associated with substantially lower use of nonpreferred lipid-lowering drugs in Michigan, offset by increases in the use of preferred medications, but there was less change in Indiana. Data limitations did not permit the evaluation of the impact of policy-induced switching on clinical outcomes such as cholesterol levels. The monetary benefit of PA policies for lipid-lowering agents should be weighed against administrative costs and the burden on patients and health care providers.

Access to care and medicines, burden of health care expenditures, and risk protection: results from the World Health Survey.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the contribution of health insurance and a functioning public sector to access to care and medicines and household economic burden. METHODS: We used descriptive and logistic regression analyses on 2002/3 World Health Survey data in 70 countries. RESULTS: Across countries, 286,803 households and 276,362 respondents contributed data. More than 90% of households had access to acute care. However, less than half of respondents with a chronic condition reported access. In 51 low and middle income countries (LMIC), health care expenditures accounted for 13-32% of total 4-week household expenditures. One in four poor households in low income countries incurred potentially catastrophic health care expenses and more than 40% used savings, borrowed money, or sold assets to pay for care. Between 41% and 56% of households in LMIC spent 100% of health care expenditures on medicines. Health insurance and a functioning public sector were both associated with better access to care and lower risk of economic burden. CONCLUSION: To improve access, policy makers should improve public sector provision of care, increase health insurance coverage, and expand medicines benefit policies in health insurance systems.

Impact of two Medicaid prior-authorization policies on antihypertensive use and costs among Michigan and Indiana residents dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare: results of a longitudinal, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In response to rising pharmaceutical costs, many state Medicaid programs have implemented policies requiring prior authorization for high-cost medications, even for established users. However, little is known about the impact of these policies on the use of antihypertensive medicines in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this longitudinal, population-based study was to assess comprehensive prior-authorization programs for antihypertensives on drug use and costs in a vulnerable Medicaid population in Michigan and Indiana. METHODS: A prior-authorization policy for antihypertensives was implemented in Michigan in March 2002 and in Indiana in September 2002; Indiana also implemented an antihypertensive stepwise-therapy requirement in July 2003. Our study cohort included individuals aged >or=18 years in Michigan and Indiana who were continuously enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare from July 2000 through September 2003. Claims data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We included all antihypertensive medications, including diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, and angiotcnsin II receptor blockers. We used interrupted time-series analysis to study policy-related changes in the total number and cost of antihypertensive prescriptions. RESULTS: Overall, 38,684 enrollees in Michigan and 29,463 in Indiana met our inclusion criteria. Slightly more than half of our cohort in both states was female (53.29%in Michigan and 56.32%in Indiana). In Michigan, 20.23% of patients were aged >or=65 years; 77.44% were white, 20.11% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. In Indiana, 20.07% were aged >or=65 years; 84.93% were white, 13.64% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. The implementation of both policies was associated with large and immediate reductions in the use of nonpreferred medications: 83.33% reduction in the use of such drugs in Michigan (-84.30 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001) and 35.76% in Indiana (-64.45 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001). As expected, use of preferred medications also increased substantially in both states (P < 0.001). Overall, antihypertensive therapy immediately dropped 0.16% in Michigan (P = 0.04) and 1.82% in Indiana (P = 0.02). Implementation of the policies was also associated with reductions in pharmacy reimbursement of $616,572.43 in Michigan and $868,265.97 in Indiana in the first postpolicy year. CONCLUSIONS: Prior authorization was associated with lower use of nonpreferred antihypertensive drugs that was largely offset by increases in the use of preferred drugs. The possible clinical consequences of policy-induced drug switching for individual patients remain unknown because the present study did not include access to medical record data. Further research is needed to establish whether large-scale switches in medicines following the inception of prior-authorization policies have any long-term health effects.

Prior authorization for antidepressants in Medicaid: effects among disabled dual enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization is a popular, but understudied, strategy for reducing medication costs. We evaluated the impact of a controversial prior authorization policy in Michigan Medicaid on antidepressant use and health outcomes among dual Medicaid and Medicare enrollees with a Social Security Disability Insurance designation of permanent disability. METHODS: We linked Medicaid and Medicare (2000-2003) claims for dual enrollees in Michigan and a comparison state, Indiana. Using interrupted time-series and longitudinal data analysis, we estimated the impact of the policy on antidepressant medication use, treatment initiation, disruptions in therapy, and adverse health events among continuously enrolled (Michigan, n = 28 798; Indiana, n = 21 769) and newly treated (Michigan, n = 3671; Indiana, n = 2400) patients. RESULTS: In Michigan, the proportion of patients starting nonpreferred agents declined from 53% prepolicy to 20% postpolicy. The prior authorization policy was associated with a small sustained decrease in therapy initiation overall (9 per 10,000 population; P = .007). We also observed a short-term increase in switching among established users of nonpreferred agents overall (risk ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.87-4.42) and among those with depression (2.04; 1.22-3.42). However, we found no evidence of increased disruptions in treatment or adverse events (ie, hospitalization, emergency department use) among newly treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prior authorization was associated with increased use of preferred agents with no evidence of disruptions in therapy or adverse health events among new users. However, unintended effects on treatment initiation and switching among patients already taking the drug were also observed, lending support to the state's previous decision to discontinue prior approval for antidepressants in 2003.