Financial Burden of Discarded Weight-based Antineoplastic Drugs to Payers and Patients in the Private Insurance Market.

Background: Our study estimated insurance payments and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses associated with discarded weight-based intravenous antineoplastic drugs for privately insured US adult patients with cancer. Methods: We identified patients who received weight-based antineoplastic drugs from a 2017 MarketScan health risk assessment (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) linked to claims data. Using weight information in the health risk assessment, we derived the recommended dose and calculated the percentage of drugs discarded. We applied ß-regression to determine factors associated with the discarded percentages. To compare patients with and without high-deductible plans, we employed a generalized linear model and a 2-part model to examine insurance payment and OOP expense, respectively. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Of 27 350 claims for 58 weight-based antineoplastic drugs from 1970 patients, the median discarded percentage was 9.8% (mean [SD] = 12.8% [10.5%]). Aside from drug and tumor type, statistically significantly higher discarded percentages were found for patients in the lowest weight group (5.5% [95% confidence interval = 4.7% to 6.4%]; P < .001; weight <150 lb [68.0 kg] vs ≥200 lb [90.7 kg]). Private payers spent $5090 per patient in 2017 on discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs, and patients' mean OOP expense on discarded drugs was $63. In total, 39.7% of patients had high-deductible plans. The adjusted mean OOP expense for discarded drugs was statistically significantly higher for those in high-deductible plans ($95 vs $47; P < .001). Conclusions: Private insurers incurred substantial financial burden from discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs. Although the OOP expenses of discarded drugs were modest for most privately insured patients with cancer, approximately 5% spent more than $400 on the discarded drugs. Policies designed to reduce drug waste from single-dose, weight-based antineoplastic drugs should evaluate their financial consequences for payers and patients.

Impact of a Copayment Reduction Intervention on Medication Persistence and Cardiovascular Events in Hospitals With and Without Prior Medication Financial Assistance Programs.

Background Hospitals commonly provide a short-term supply of free P2Y12 inhibitors at discharge after myocardial infarction, but it is unclear if these programs improve medication persistence and outcomes. The ARTEMIS (Affordability and Real-World Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness After Myocardial Infarction Study) trial randomized hospitals to usual care versus waived P2Y12 inhibitor copayment costs for 1-year post-myocardial infarction. Whether the impact of this intervention differed between hospitals with and without pre-existing medication assistance programs is unknown. Methods and Results In this post hoc analysis of the ARTEMIS trial, we examined the associations of pre-study free medication programs and the randomized copayment voucher intervention with P2Y12 inhibitor persistence (measured by pharmacy fills and patient report) and major adverse cardiovascular events using logistic regression models including a propensity score. Among 262 hospitals, 129 (49%) offered pre-study free medication assistance. One-year P2Y12 inhibitor persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events risks were similar between patients treated at hospitals with and without free medication programs (adjusted odds ratio 0.93, 95% CI, 0.82-1.05 and hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI, 0.80-1.07, respectively). The randomized copayment voucher intervention improved persistence, assessed by pharmacy fills, in both hospitals with (53.6% versus 44.0%, adjusted odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI, 1.20-1.75) and without (59.0% versus 48.3%, adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95% CI, 1.25-1.70) free medication programs (Pinteraction=0.71). Differences in patient-reported persistence were not significant after adjustment. Conclusions While hospitals commonly report the ability to provide free short-term P2Y12 inhibitors, we did not find association of this with medication persistence or major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with insurance coverage for prescription medication enrolled in the ARTEMIS trial. An intervention that provided copayment assistance vouchers for 1 year was successful in improving medication persistence in hospitals with and without pre-existing short-term medication programs. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT02406677.

Assessing the Association of Formulary Copayment Changes with Real-World Treatment Patterns in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis on Etanercept.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment to improve or maintain stable disease activity. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), a class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), are effective at treating symptoms and inhibiting joint progression. Although treatment changes are not recommended in patients with stable disease, health plans have recently enacted formulary changes with higher copayments that could disrupt patient access to TNFis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of formulary copayment changes with real-world treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and health care costs among bDMARD-naive patients with RA receiving the TNFi etanercept. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort analysis used the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Adult patients with RA with 6 months of stable etanercept use (no refill gap ≥ 45 days) from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, were selected and the index date was set to the first fill date after the stable-use period. Average etanercept copayment was calculated at the drug-plan level. Copayment change was defined as a monthly increase of at least $40 to account for copayment changes attributable to etanercept wholesale acquisition costs between 2014 and 2015. This amount also corresponded to the 90th percentile of average plan-level changes in etanercept copayments in the database, representing an average change in copayment by a payer. Patients were followed ≥ 12 months before and after the index date to track etanercept treatment changes and ≥ 12 months after a treatment change to track costs after etanercept copayment changes. Etanercept persistence, bDMARD switching, refill gaps, and treatment effectiveness (using a validated effectiveness algorithm) were described for patients with or without copayment change during the 12 months post-index or postchange. We also assessed the mean total of all-cause and RA-related expenditure during the 12-month post-index (or postchange) period. RESULTS: 1,970 stable patients met study inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation] age: 50.3 [9.5] years; 77.8% female) and were evaluated. Of these, 133 (6.8%) patients had a copayment change ≥$40 during follow-up. Overall, most patients (60.3%) persisted on etanercept for the 12-month follow-up period, while 13.0% switched from etanercept, and 8.1% discontinued (refill gap of ≥ 45 days). Nearly half (48.0%) of all patients were considered effectively treated according to a validated algorithm. Compared with patients without a copayment change, those with a copayment change were more likely to switch biologics (19.5% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.021). Although statistical significance was not reached, patients with a copayment change were less likely to be persistent (54.1% vs. 60.7%; P = 0.135), and less likely to be effectively treated (42.1% vs. 48.4%; P = 0.161) than patients without a copayment change. All-cause and RA-related expenditures at baseline and post-copayment change were similar between patients with and without a copayment change. CONCLUSIONS: Changing formulary copayment of etanercept was associated with higher switching without difference in costs or health care utilization between copayment and no copayment change groups. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Amgen. Bonafede, Manjelievskaia, and Lopez-Gonzalez are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Oko-osi, Collier, and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. The authors have no other relationships that present a potential conflict of interest. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at the 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL.

High-Deductible Health Plans and Cancer Survivorship: What Is the Association With Access to Care and Hospital Emergency Department Use?

PURPOSE: To examine the associations among high-deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment, cancer survivorship, and access to care and utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2010 to 2017 National Health Interview Survey was used to identify privately insured adults ages 18 to 64 years (cancer survivors, n = 4,321; individuals without a cancer history, n = 95,316). We used multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the associations among HDHP/health savings account (HSA) status, delayed/forgone care for financial reasons, and hospital emergency department (ED) visits among cancer survivors compared with individuals without a cancer history. RESULTS: Among cancer survivors, HDHPs with or without HSA (8.9% and 13.9%, respectively; both P < .05) were associated with more delayed/forgone care compared with low-deductible health plans (LDHPs) (7.9%). HSA enrollment was associated with less delayed/forgone care among HDHP cancer survivors (P < .05). ED visits were similar by insurance type. Among individuals without a cancer history, HDHP with or without HSA (9.5% and 10.8%, respectively; both P < .05) were both associated with more delayed/forgone care compared with LDHPs (5.9%). HSA enrollment also was associated with less delayed/forgone care among HDHP enrollees without a cancer history. A small difference in ED visits was observed between HDHPs without HSA (15.3%) and LDHPs (14.1%; P < .05) or HDHPs with HSA (13.4%; P < .05) among individuals without a cancer history. CONCLUSION: HDHP enrollment and HSA status affect access to care and hospital ED visits similarly by cancer history. HDHP enrollment may serve as a barrier to access to care among cancer survivors, although HSA enrollment coupled with an HDHP may mitigate the impact on access. HDHPs and HSA status were not associated with ED visits among cancer survivors. Improvement to care coordination efforts may be needed to reduce ED visits among privately insured cancer survivors.

Cancer History, Health Insurance Coverage, and Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Medication Cost-Coping Strategies in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between cancer history and cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN) as well as cost-coping strategies, by health insurance coverage. METHODS: We used the 2013 to 2016 National Health Interview Survey to identify adults aged 18 to 64 years with (n = 3599) and without (n = 56 909) a cancer history. Cost-related changes in medication use included (1) CRN, measured as skipping, taking less, or delaying medication because of cost, and (2) cost-coping strategies, measured as requesting lower cost medication or using alternative therapies to save money. Separate multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of CRN and cost-coping strategies associated with cancer history, stratified by insurance. RESULTS: Cancer survivors were more likely than adults without a cancer history to report CRN (AOR 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.43) and cost-coping strategies (AOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.99-1.19). Among the privately insured, the difference in CRN by cancer history was the greatest among those enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) without health savings accounts (HSAs) (AOR 1.78; 95% CI 1.30-2.44). Among adults with HDHP and HSA, cancer survivors were less likely to report cost-coping strategies (AOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90). Regardless of cancer history, CRN and cost-coping strategies were the highest for those uninsured, enrolled in HDHP without HSA, and without prescription drug coverage under their health plan (all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors are prone to CRN and more likely to use cost-coping strategies. Expanding options for health insurance coverage, use of HSAs for those with HDHP, and enhanced prescription drug coverage may effectively address CRN.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Impact of Deductible Health Plans on Parental Decision Making for Common Pediatric Otolaryngology Procedures.

Objective To describe how deductible health plans affect parental decision making for common pediatric otolaryngology operations. Study Design A cross-sectional survey study. Setting Tertiary care pediatric hospital. Subjects and Methods Caregivers of patients aged <18 years were surveyed to assess factors in decision making related to common otolaryngologic surgical procedures, including outpatient tympanostomy tubes and adenotonsillectomy, between July 2015 and June 2016. Children in foster care and those who underwent nonelective surgery were excluded. Decision-making factors were statistically analyzed with univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression. Results A total of 155 caregivers completed the survey. The median age of the patient at the time of the surgery was 3 years. Surgical procedures included tympanostomy tube placement (51%), adenotonsillectomy (37%), tympanostomy tube placement with adenotonsillectomy (10%), and other (2%). The mean ± SD annual deductible per child was $1870 ± $140, and the mean maximum out-of-pocket expense was $3833 ± $235. The odds of having the deductible or out-of-pocket expense affect surgical decision making was greater for those covered under a high-deductible health plan (odds ratio = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.25-4.12; P = .007). Conclusion High-deductible health plans and out-of-pocket expenses can influence parental decision making for common otolaryngology operations, such as tympanostomy tube placement and adenotonsillectomy. Future studies are needed to determine if such policies affect access to care in the pediatric population.

Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Primary Nonadherence to Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Real-World Data from a Population-Based Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Primary nonadherence (not filling a first prescription) is an important yet unstudied aspect of adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the rates of primary nonadherence to OACs and determine associated factors in real-world practice. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study set in the Valencia region of Spain (about 5 million inhabitants) included all patients with atrial fibrillation who were newly prescribed OACs during 2011-2014 (N = 18,715). Primary nonadherence was obtained by linking electronic prescription and dispensing data and assessed by type of OAC-vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Covariates were obtained from diverse databases, including electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess characteristics associated with primary nonadherence, adjusting for a propensity score to minimize confounding by indication. RESULTS: Primary nonadherence to OACs was 5.62% (VKA 4.29% vs. NOAC 10.81%; P < 0.001), with varying rates among specific drugs (acenocoumarol 4.2%, warfarin 10.9%, apixaban 5.0%, dabigatran 7.9%, and rivaroxaban 15.5%). After adjusting for potential confounders, the likelihood of not filling the first prescription was higher for NOAC patients than for VKA patients (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.41-3.15). High coinsurance in the older groups (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.47-4.69 for patients aged 66-75 years and OR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.58-5.76 for patients aged > 75 years); being a non-Spanish European (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.12-1.99); and having dementia (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.37-2.16) were positively associated with primary nonadherence. Electronic transmission of prescriptions (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96); liver disease (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99); and polypharmacy (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.50-0.70) were inversely associated with primary nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, primary nonadherence to OACs was relatively low (5%). However, important differences were found between VKAs and NOACs. After adjustment, patients prescribed NOACs nearly tripled the likelihood of nonadherence compared with patients prescribed VKAs, which could negatively affect their effectiveness in clinical practice. Identified correlates were similar to those shown in the limited evidence for other medications. DISCLOSURES: This work was partially supported by the 2013 Collaboration Agreement between the Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica (FISABIO) from the Valencia Ministry of Health and Boehringer Ingelheim, a nonconditioned program to conduct independent research in chronic health care, pharmacoepidemiology, and medical practice variation. Rodriguez-Bernal was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health, and cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (grant number RD12/0001/0005). The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the FISABIO Foundation, the Valencia Ministry of Health, or the study sponsors. The funding sources had no access to study data and did not participate in any way in the design or conduct of the study, data analysis, decisions regarding the dissemination of findings, the development of the manuscript, or its publication. Peiró has received fees for participation in scientific meetings and courses sponsored by Novartis and Ferrer International. In 2014, Sanfélix-Gimeno participated in an advisory meeting of Boehringer Ingelheim. García-Sempere is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Rodriguez-Bernal and Hurtado have no relationships relevant to the contents of this article to disclose. This work was previously submitted as an abstract (podium presentation) at the 31st International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Annual Conference; August 22-26, 2015; Boston, Massachusetts.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment.

Purpose High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending and might delay crucial health services. Breast cancer treatment delays of as little as 2 months are associated with adverse outcomes. Methods We used a controlled prepost design with survival analysis to assess timing of breast cancer care events among 273,499 women age 25 to 64 years without evidence of breast cancer before inclusion. Women were included if continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible ($0 to $500) plan followed by up to 4 years in a HDHP (at least $1,000 deductible) after an employer-mandated switch. Study inclusion was on a rolling basis, and members were followed between 2003 and 2012. The comparison group comprised 2.4 million contemporaneously matched women whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Measures were times to first diagnostic breast imaging (diagnostic mammogram, breast ultrasound, or breast magnetic resonance imaging), breast biopsy, incident early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer chemotherapy. Outcomes were analyzed by using Cox models and adjusted for age-group, morbidity score, poverty level, US region, index date, and employer size. Results After the index date, HDHP members experienced delays in receipt of diagnostic imaging (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.96), biopsy (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.95), early-stage breast cancer diagnosis (aHR, 0.83; 0.78 to 0.90), and chemotherapy initiation (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.86) compared with the control group. Conclusion Women switched to HDHPs experienced delays in diagnostic breast imaging, breast biopsy, early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy initiation. Additional research should determine whether such delays cause adverse health outcomes, and policymakers should consider selectively reducing out-of-pocket costs for key breast cancer services.

Value Of Waiving Coinsurance For Colorectal Cancer Screening In Medicare Beneficiaries.

Financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening persist despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Medicare beneficiaries may face 20 percent coinsurance for a screening colonoscopy when the procedure includes the removal of polyps or follows a positive fecal screening test. Using an established microsimulation model, we estimated that waiving this coinsurance would result in 1.7 fewer colorectal cancer deaths (a decrease of 13 percent) and $17,000 higher colorectal cancer-related costs (an increase of 0.6 percent) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services per 1,000 sixty-five-year-olds, assuming a 10-percentage-point increase in the rates of first colonoscopy screening, follow-up, and surveillance. If the rates did not change, waiving coinsurance would increase total costs by $51,000 (1.9 percent) per 1,000 sixty-five-year-olds. Estimated screening benefits were comparable when fecal testing was assumed to be the primary screening method. Moreover, waiving coinsurance would be cost-effective if the screening rate increased by 0.6 percentage points, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Thus, the waiver is likely to have a favorable balance of health and cost impact.

Using the deductible for patient channeling: did preferred providers gain patient volume?

In market-based health care systems, channeling patients to designated preferred providers can increase payer's bargaining clout, other things being equal. In the unique setting of the new Dutch health care system with regulated competition, this paper evaluates the impact of a 1-year natural experiment with patient channeling on providers' market shares. In 2009 a large regional Dutch health insurer designated preferred providers for two different procedures (cataract surgery and varicose veins treatment) and gave its enrollees a positive financial incentive for choosing them. That is, patients were exempted from paying their deductible when they went to a preferred provider. Using claims data over the period 2007-2009, we apply a difference-in-difference approach to study the impact of this channeling strategy on the allocation of patients across individual providers. Our estimation results show that, in the year of the experiment, preferred providers of varicose veins treatment on average experienced a significant increase in patient volume relative to non-preferred providers. However, for cataract surgery no significant effect is found. Possible explanations for the observed difference between both procedures may be the insurer's selection of preferred providers and the design of the channeling incentive resulting in different expected financial benefits for both patient groups.

Free Medicines Thanks to Retirement: Impact of Coinsurance Exemption on Pharmaceutical Expenditures and Hospitalization Offsets in a national health service.

This paper examines the impact of coinsurance exemption for prescription medicines applied to elderly individuals in Spain after retirement. We use a rich administrative dataset that links pharmaceutical consumption and hospital discharge records for the full population aged 58 to 65 years in January 2004 covered by the public insurer in a Spanish region, and we follow them until December 2006. We use a difference-in-differences strategy and exploit the eligibility age for Social Security to control for the endogeneity of the retirement decision. Our results show that this uniform exemption increases the consumption of prescription medicines on average by 17.5%, total pharmaceutical expenditure by 25% and the costs borne by the insurer by 60.4%, without evidence of any offset effect in the form of lower short term probability of hospitalization. The impact is concentrated among consumers of medicines for acute and other non-chronic diseases whose previous coinsurance rate was 30% to 40%. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ACA-mandated elimination of cost sharing for preventive screening has had limited early impact.

OBJECTIVES: The Affordable Care Act eliminated patient cost sharing for evidence-based preventive care, yet the impact of this policy on colonoscopy and mammography rates is unclear. We examined the elimination of cost sharing among small business beneficiaries of Humana, a large national insurer. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective interrupted time series analysis of whether the change in cost-sharing policy was associated with a change in screening utilization, using grandfathered plans as a comparison group. METHODS: We compared beneficiaries in small business nongrandfathered plans that were required to eliminate cost sharing (intervention) with those in grandfathered plans that did not have to change cost sharing (control). There were 63,246 men and women aged 50 to 64 years eligible for colorectal cancer screening, and 30,802 women aged 50 to 64 years eligible for breast cancer screening. The primary outcome variables were rates of colonoscopy and mammography per person-month, with secondary analysis of colonoscopy rates coded as preventive only. RESULTS: There was no significant change in the level or slope of colonoscopy and mammography utilization for intervention plans relative to the control plans. There was also no significant relevant change among those colonoscopies coded as preventive. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the implementation of the policy is not having its intended effects, as cost sharing rates for colonoscopy and mammography did not change substantially, and utilization of colonoscopy and mammography changed little, following this new policy approach.

The cost of freezing general practice.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effect on general practitioners' income, and the amount of any copayment required for GPs to recoup lost income, of two policies (individually and combined) proposed by the Australian Government: a continued indexation freeze of Medicare schedule fees; and a $5 rebate reduction (now retracted). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program, a continuous cross-sectional, national study of GP activity in Australia. We used data for April 2013 to March 2014 on direct encounters between patients and GPs for which at least one Medicare Benefits Schedule or Department of Veterans' Affairs general practice consultation item was claimable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The reduction in GP rebate income due to the policies and the size of any copayment needed to address this loss. RESULTS: The $5 rebate reduction would have reduced GPs' income by $219.53 per 100 consultations. This would have required a $4.81 copayment at all non-concessional patient consultations to recoup lost income. The freeze would cost GPs $384.32 in 2017-18 dollars per 100 consultations, requiring an $8.43 copayment per non-concessional patient consultation. Total estimated loss in rebate income to GPs would have been $603.85 in 2017-18 per 100 encounters, a reduction of 11.2%. The non-concessional consultation copayment required to cover lost income from both policies would have been $7-$8 in 2015-16, and $12-$15 by 2017-18. CONCLUSION: If both policies had gone ahead, GPs would have needed to charge substantially more than the suggested $5 copayment for consultations with non-concessional patients in order to maintain 2014-15 relative gross income. Even though the rebate reduction has been retracted, the freeze will have greater impact with time - nearly double the amount of the rebate reduction by 2017-18. For economic reasons, the freeze may still force GPs who currently bulk bill to charge copayments.