Developing an Adjunct Services Approach to Identify the Use of Procedures Not Covered by Health Insurance: The Case of In Vitro Fertilization.

BACKGROUND: Health care claims have an inherent limitation in that noncovered services are unreported. This limitation is particularly problematic when researchers wish to study the effects of changes in the insurance coverage of a service. In prior work, we studied the change in the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) after an employer added coverage. To estimate IVF use before coverage began, we developed and tested an Adjunct Services Approach that identified patterns of covered services cooccurring with IVF. METHODS: Based on clinical expertise and guidelines, we developed a list of candidate adjunct services and used claims data after IVF coverage began to assess associations of those codes with known IVF cycles and whether any additional codes were also strongly associated with IVF. The algorithm was validated by primary chart review and was then used to infer IVF in the precoverage period. RESULTS: The selected algorithm included pelvic ultrasounds and either menotropin or ganirelix, yielding a sensitivity of 93.0% and specificity of >99.9%. DISCUSSION: The Adjunct Services Approach effectively assessed the change in IVF use postinsurance coverage. Our approach can be adapted to study IVF in other settings or to study other medical services experiencing coverage changes (eg, fertility preservation, bariatric surgery, and sex confirmation surgery). Overall, we find that an Adjunct Services Approach can be useful when (1) clinical pathways exist to define services delivered adjunct to the noncovered service, (2) those pathways are followed for most patients receiving the service, and (3) similar patterns of adjunct services occur infrequently with other procedures.

Does health insurance coverage of office visits influence colorectal cancer testing?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of differing health insurance coverage of physician office visits on the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) tests among an employed and insured population. METHOD: Cohort study of persons ages 50 to 64 years enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) or preferred provider organization (PPO) health plans, where FFS plan enrollees bear disproportionate share of office visit coverage, for the period 1995 through 1999. RESULTS: Compared with FFS plans, enrollees in PPO plans were significantly more likely to obtain CRC tests [adjusted relative risk (RR(a)), 1.27; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.21-1.24]. The association was more pronounced among hourly individuals (RR(a), 1.43; 95% CI, 1.41-1.45) than among salaried individuals (RR(a), 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10), consistent with a greater differential in office visit coverage among the hourly group. CONCLUSIONS: Disproportionate cost-sharing seems to have a negative effect on the use of CRC tests most likely by discouraging nonacute care physician office visits.

Association between health insurance coverage of office visit and cancer screening among women.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the nuances of insurance benefit design that may affect the receipt of clinical preventive services. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether differences in insurance coverage of physician office visits influences the receipt of cancer screening in women who have full coverage for the screening services. DESIGN: Cohort study of women enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) or Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health plans, where FFS plans have less generous office visit coverage, for the period 1995 to 1997. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: General Motors Corporation's employees and their dependents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Papanicolaou and mammography rates in women aged 21 to 64 years (n = 139,294) and 52 to 64 years (n = 56,554), respectively. RESULTS: Compared with FFS plans, enrollees in PPO plans were significantly more likely to obtain a Papanicolaou smear and mammogram (adjusted relative risk [RRa] = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.24; and RRa, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15-1.18, respectively). The association was more pronounced among hourly individuals (RRa, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.26-1.29 for Papanicolaou smears; RRa, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.16-1.19 for mammograms) than among salaried individuals (RRa, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12 for Papanicolaou smears and RRa, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12 for mammograms), corresponding to a greater differential in office visit coverage among the hourly group. CONCLUSIONS: Benefit structure appears to have an important effect on receipt of cancer screening in women. The findings highlight the need to ensure that future reforms of the health care system do not adversely affect the use of preventive services.